Aahz wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2004, Stelios Xanthakis wrote: >> >> I posted a message on c.l.p a couple of days ago about a >> python patch which adds a member __pycde__ to functions and >> classes. This member is a string which holds the python code of >> the function/class. (It works in interactively defined code >> and exec'd definitions) >> >> Supposing that: I ported this to 2.4b2 and made it have zero overhead >> when python runs in normal mode, is there any chance it would be >> considered a candidate for inclusion in mainline python? > > There is zero chance it'll go into 2.4. There's a decent chance it'll > go into 2.5, but if you get any pushback on the feature, be prepared to > write up a full PEP. Well, not necessarily pushback, but I'd like a clarification at least. What kind of memory overhead does this introduce? If every function running around is holding a full copy of all its source, is this overhead potentially significant? What happens with decorators, which modify functions but are not explicit source-level transformations? Since this is already fairly straightforward to implement via inspect, I'd like to see a pretty strong justification for its real need before seeing it go in. It smells a bit of unnecessary bloat to me, but perhaps I'm missing something obvious, so I'd be happy to be educated. Regards, f
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