Travis Oliphant wrote:
>> Probably the most interesting thing now would be for Travis to review
>> it, and see whether it makes things easier to handle for the Numeric
>> scalar types (given the amount of code the patch deleted from the
>> builtin and standard library data types, hopefully the benefits to
>> Numeric will be comparable).
>
>
> I noticed most of the checks for PyInt where removed in the patch. If I
> remember correctly, I left these in for "optimization." Other than
> that, I think the patch is great.
You're right - there was a fast path based on PyInt_Check in
_PyEval_SliceIndex that got lost, which I'll add back in. I'll also add fast
paths for PyInt_Check to the functions in abstract.c, too.
The other PyInt_Check's (in slot_nb_index and instance_index) were there to
check that __index__ returned the right thing. The check was still there in
slot_nb_index, but I'd incorrectly removed it from instance_index. I'll add
that one back in, too.
Once that's done, I'll update the tracker item and reassign to Tim for a review.
Cheers,
Nick.
> As far as helping with NumPy, I think it will help to be able to remove
> special-checks for all the different integer-types. But, this has not
> yet been done in the NumPy code.
>
> -Travis
>
>
>
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4