On 07/04/2009, at 7:27 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Cesare Di Mauro > <cesare.dimauro at a-tono.com> wrote: >> The Language Reference says nothing about the effects of code >> optimizations. >> I think it's a very good thing, because we can do some work here >> with constant >> folding. > > Unfortunately the language reference is not the only thing we have to > worry about. Unlike languages like C++, where compiler writers have > the moral right to modify the compiler as long as they stay within the > weasel-words of the standard, in Python, users' expectations carry > value. Since the language is inherently not that fast, users are not > all that focused on performance (if they were, they wouldn't be using > Python). Unsurprising behavior OTOH is valued tremendously. Rather than trying to get the optimizer to guess, why not have a "const" keyword and make it explicit? The result would be a symbol that essentially only exists at compile time - references to the symbol would be replaced by the computed value while compiling. Okay, maybe that would suck a bit (no symbolic debug output). Yeah, I know... take it to python-wild-and-ill-considered-ideas at python.org .
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