Tim Peters wrote: > [Oren Tirosh] > >>... >>This version, like the previous one, does not support indirect >>interning of strings. Is there any evidence that this optimization is >>still important? Nothing in the Python distribution itself needs it. > > > We've already been thru the last part at length: indirect interning wasn't > targeted at the core, so that the core doesn't need it is evidence of no > more than that Guido's implementation worked as he intended it to in this > respect. > > It would help if you could get Marc-Andre and /F to pronounce on whether > their code benefits from it -- they're the most prolific extension authors > we've got. Gee, thanks :-) If you could spell out what exactly you mean by "indirect interning" that would help. What I do need and rely on is the fact that the Python compiler interns all constant strings and identifiers in Python programs. This makes switching like so: if a == 'x': elif a == 'y': else: also work like this (only faster): if a is 'x': elif a is 'y': else: provided that 'a' only uses interned strings. If that's what you mean by "indirect interning" then I do need this. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH _______________________________________________________________________ eGenix.com -- Makers of the Python mx Extensions: mxDateTime,mxODBC,... Python Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/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