RetroSearch Browse

Sat Sep 3 20:45:19 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-September/146150.html

>
>     But without that new API (basically what Christian proposed) you'd
>     need
>     to iterate over the list in order to find the object that belongs to
>     Pyjion.
>
>
> Yes.

Yeah, which means the same for my opcode patch... Which unfortunately 
will make things slower :(

>       If we manage to implement my opcode caching idea, we'll have at
>     least two known users of co_extra.  Without a way to claim a
>     particular
>     index in co_extra you will have some overhead to locate your objects.
>
>
> Two things. One, I would want any new API to start with an underscore 
> so people know we can and will change its semantics as necessary. Two, 
> Guido would have to re-accept the PEP as this is a shift in the use of 
> the field if this is how people want to go.

Since this isn't a user-facing/public API feature, are we *really* 
forced to accept/implement the PEP before the beta?

I'd be happy to spend some time tomorrow/Monday to hammer out an 
alternative approach to co_extra. Let's see if we can find a slightly 
better approach.

Yury

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-September/146150.html below:

[Python-Dev] Tweak to PEP 523 for storing a tuple in co_extra