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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-June/036360.html below:

[Python-Dev] On the possibility of "optimizing" range() calls in for-loops

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] On the possibility of "optimizing" range() calls in for-loops
• Next message: [Python-Dev] On the possibility of "optimizing" range() calls in for-loops
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Chad Netzer <cnetzer@sonic.net> writes:

> There would have to be logic to determine that the range function
> being used is the builtin range, and not a shadowed version.  I assume
> this can be done in a fairly straightforward manner at compile time.
> I could use advice on whether this is feasible (but see below, first)

It is not. Shadowing may occur well after the module import, by
inserting a name in the globals. If it were feasible, it would have
been done long ago.

Regards,
Martin

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] On the possibility of "optimizing" range() calls in for-loops
• Next message: [Python-Dev] On the possibility of "optimizing" range() calls in for-loops
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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