Ok, somebody go for it! (Also please refer to my pronouncement in the bug -- I've gotta run.) On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> > wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Ned Batchelder <ned at nedbatchelder.com> > wrote: > >> If the bug report is accurate, CPython and the reference manual have > >> disagreed since Python 2.5, and many of us are now surprised to hear it, > >> which means there can't have been much broken code. > > > > Give that it was discussed before and fixed before, I think the intent > > is clear: we should fix the code, not the docs. > > Almost certainly, it was broken in the migration to the AST compiler > and there was no regression test to pick up the change. > > > I haven't looked at the proposed fixes, but I think correctness is > > more important than saving an extra bytecode (OTOH keeping the set of > > opcodes the same trumps both). I can't imagine that this extra opcode > > will be significant in many cases. > > Since you've indicated the implementation is in the wrong here and you > also want to preserve opcode semantics, I think Skip's patch is > correct, but also needs to be applied to dict comprehensions (now we > have them). The extra bytecode is only ROT_TWO, which is one of the > cheapest we have kicking around :) > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20121107/f71543c4/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