Tres Seaver wrote: > Nick Coghlan wrote: >> (and don't worry too much about 3 - it will give me an opportunity to >> road test the functools patch by using it to refactor pprint and check >> the performance implications) > > /me wonders about the performance-criticality of anything using > 'pprint'. Or were you just planning to use it as a means to benchmark > the 'simplegeneric' stuff? I would think something with a lot lower > intrinsic overhead would be a better benchmark target. Don't read too much into that comment - generics make the most sense in cases (like pprint) where extensibility is a more important feature than raw speed. I'm talking about more subjective impressions of performance as well as things like "if I register a handler for Sequence, is there any performance advantage in registering direct handlers for the builtin subclasses?". Really drastic performance degradations would be on the radar as well - slowing pprint() down by 10% is unlikely to bother anyone, but slowing it down by 100% would be a bad thing (not that I think such a degradation is likely, I'm just trying to give an impression of the magnitude of change I'll be trying to measure). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------
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