RetroSearch Browse

Fri Feb 13 12:37:52 CET 2015 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-February/138216.html

On 13 February 2015 at 20:33, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-02-13 11:19 GMT+01:00 Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com>:
>> On 13 February 2015 at 10:07, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> => IMO the best option is to take the C implementation. What do you think?
>>
>> FWIW (as I'm not a core dev) I agree. The Windows speedup is huge, and
>> well worth adding the code. I'm assuming that the majority of the C
>> code is cross-platform, so we're not adding a big chunk of code
>> needing *both* Windows and C skills to maintain (any dev with C skills
>> could handle it).
>>
>> Paul
>
> The patch can be read here:
> http://bugs.python.org/file36963/scandir-2.patch
>
> Or using Rietveld:
> http://bugs.python.org/review/22524/#ps13104
>
> The C code is quite simple. It takes 800 lines because C code is more
> "verbose" than Python code. Manipulate strings, manage memory, take
> care of the reference counter, etc. just takes more lines.

This isn't code I'd expect us to have to change very often, so the
maintenance risks associated with the pure C implementation seem low.
Having it in a separate file rather than making the main
implementation file for os even larger does seem like an attractive
structural option though.

Regards,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-February/138216.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 471 (scandir): Poll to choose the implementation (full C or C+Python)