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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-June/036363.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 ]

On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 02:56, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

> 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.

Somehow, when I dreamed all this up, I convinced myself that the
byte-compiler could know whether the range() in globals was the builtin,
and only do the optimization if it was.

Now, I can't even recall why I thought that. :)

Oh well.  Thanks.

Chad

• 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