[Skip] > In the face of exec statements or calls to execfile can't the > compiler just generate the usual LOAD_NAME fallback instead of the new- > fangled LOAD_GLOBAL opcode? Note that exec doesn't have to be passed a string: you can pass it a compiled code object just as well. The compiler can't guess how a code object will be used at the time it's compiled. In theory there would be nothing to stop exec from rewriting the bytecode in a compiled code object passed to it, but I doubt we could get Guido to buy that trick until he first buys rewriting bytecode to set debugger breakpoints <wink>.
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