Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > oops. mailer problem; here's the rest of the mail: > > > I have a 500k "negative patch" sitting on my machine which removes > > most of unicodectype.c, replacing it with a small data table (based on > > the same unidb work as yesterdays unicodedatabase patch). > > (this shaves another another 400-500k off the source distribution, > and 10-20k in the binaries...) > > I've verified that all ctype-related methods eturn the same result > as before the patch, for all characters in the unicode set (see the > attached script). > > should I check it in? Any chance of taking a look at it first ? (BTW, what happened to the usual post to SF, review, then checkin cycle ?) The C type checks are a little performance sensitive since they are used on a char by char basis in the C implementation of .upper(), etc. -- do the new methods give the same performance ? -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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