A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-August/016866.html below:

[Python-Dev] optimizing non-local object access

[Python-Dev] optimizing non-local object access [Python-Dev] optimizing non-local object accessMartin v. Loewis martin@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de
Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:00:46 +0200
[Martin]
> Would that catch changes like [accessing __dict__]

[Jeremy]
> It would because __dict__ wouldn't be a dictionary

[Guido]

> In 2.2, if you don't use __getitem__ for access-by-number, you could
> subclass dictionary and add a separate set of APIs to access the
> variables by number (and to assign numbers to them in the first
> place).  Then it would still behave like a real dictionary enough to
> be usable for the PyDict_* C API functions.

But then, changes that happen through PyDict_SetItem would not be
tracked for the dlict objects, would they (assuming that the dlict
objects keep an additional array per dictionary which needs to be
updated)?

Regards,
Martin



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