RetroSearch Browse

Mon Apr 9 17:17:32 CEST 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-April/118630.html

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Mark Shannon <mark at hotpy.org> wrote:
>> f_namespaces would be part of the frame, replacing f_builtins, f_globals
>> and f_locals. The indirection of an external object hurts performance,
>> so it would have to be a struct within the frame. The aim is clarity;
>> locals, globals and builtins form a trio, so should be implemented as such.
> 
> How does replacing three fields with a struct containing three fields
> reduce the size of the frame or the overhead in creating it?
> 

It doesn't.
I think it would improve clarity, but I doubt it is worth the effort.

The point I really wanted to make is that many of the fields in the
frame object belong elsewhere and adding new fields to the frame object
is generally a bad idea.

Cheers,
Mark.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-April/118630.html below:

[Python-Dev] Removing surplus fields from the frame object and not adding any new ones.