On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Craig Citro <craigcitro at gmail.com> wrote: >> Whoa. That's very peculiar looking bytecode. Is dis.dis behaving as >> it should here? >> BTW, I think you want 'raise TypeError', not 'raise TypeError()'. >> > > Yep, that's embarrassing. I was being lazy: I was expecting different > bytecodes, and I got it ... so I apparently didn't bother to actually > read the bytecodes? It's interesting -- if I'd just had TypeError > instead of TypeError(), I would have found this out, because "raise > TypeError" is not the bytes representation of a valid sequence of > bytecodes. ;) Ah; interesting. Well clearly that's exactly what I meant when I said 'raise TypeError' was better than 'raise TypeError()'. ;-) (Actually, I confess to being similarly embarrassed: I have no idea *what* I was thinking there, since 'raise TypeError()' is just as valid, if a little less idiomatic.) > That said, I totally concede Martin's point -- this is an > implementation-specific thing. It happens that all the major Python > implementations compile to some VM, and I'd bet that these two compile > to different bytecodes on any of them, but that doesn't preclude > another implementation from making a different choice there. Agreed. Mark
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