"M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: > > If it means writing code in square brackets: yes -- > I don't see any real benefit other than confusing the reader... > it doesn't even gain any performance We've discussed making them lazy, which would improve performance in some cases...especially with infinite lists. :) > Oh, so I won't get these with list comprehension ? Hmm, then > I'm posting on the wrong thread, I guess ;-) Well, I didn't want to say it, but... > Say, wouldn't it make more sense to > have these notations generate tuples (which are immutable and > could thus be stored as constants) rather than lists ?! I think that the notation should create a generator. > The for-loop opcode could even make some use of this by not generating > a tuple at all (it could use a special mutable counter like the > one available in my speedup patch for 1.5: We discussed this yesterday. Anyhow, you don't need to use tuples to get the speedup. You just have to recognize the pattern in a peephole optimizer. -- Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. - http://www.cs.yale.edu/~perlis-alan/quotes.html
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