> [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? [Tim] > 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>. Arg. So much for that idea. (Although I think the mutable bytecode idea *is* the right idea for setting breakpoints after all.) --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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