Raymond Hettinger wrote: > [per module switch] > That makes good sense. > Are you guys thinking of something like this: > > __fastbuiltins__ = True # optimize all subsequent defs in the module > > [M.-A. Lemburg] > >>BTW, why not have a new opcode for symbols in the >>builtins and then only tweak the opcode implementation >>instead of having the compiler generate different code ? > > Either way results in changing one opcode/oparg pair, so I > don't see how having a new opcode helps. At some point, > the name has to be looked-up and a reference to it stored. > Afterwards, LOAD_CONST is all that is needed to fetch > the reference. Right, but with the new opcode you could have the interpreter decide whether to optimize or not without recompiling the code. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Software directly from the Source (#1, Mar 28 2003) >>> Python/Zope Products & Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ Python UK 2003, Oxford: 4 days left EuroPython 2003, Charleroi, Belgium: 88 days left
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