On 2/9/2012 11:53 AM, Mike Meyer wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:19:59 -0500 > Brett Cannon<brett at python.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 13:43, PJ Eby<pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: >>> Again, the goal is fast startup of command-line tools that only use a >>> small subset of the overall framework; doing disk access for lazy imports >>> goes against that goal. >>> >> Depends if you consider stat calls the overhead vs. the actual disk >> read/write to load the data. Anyway, this is going to lead down to a >> discussion/argument over design parameters which I'm not up to having since >> I'm not actively working on a lazy loader for the stdlib right now. > For those of you not watching -ideas, or ignoring the "Python TIOBE > -3%" discussion, this would seem to be relevant to any discussion of > reworking the import mechanism: > > http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2012-January/059801.html > > <mike So what is the implication here? That building a cache of module locations (cleared when a new module is installed) would be more effective than optimizing the search for modules on every invocation of Python? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120209/f530728a/attachment.html>
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