Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> writes: >> Hmmmm... How important is the "less memory" angle versus the "faster" >> angle? Why not just add a few bytes to the long type to store an int? >> If you're using the int, the pointer is NULL, and you're saving that >> memory, at least. The only harm is some extra memory in the type >> object. > > I'd say that the "less memory" angle is pretty important. The int > implementation has been using every trick in the book to save memory > from very early days on: it has the most sophisticated special-purpose > allocator, *and* it uses a cache for popular values, *and* you really > can't squeeze any more bits out of the structure. IIUC, doing range(10000000) in a program somewhere allocates 10 million integers, and these are *never* freed, they live in the cache forever. Correct? I do not have an actual use case for this, but it seems somewhat strange. And the point comes up from time to time on c.l.p. Thomas
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