Le mar. 19 févr. 2019 à 11:57, INADA Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com> a écrit : > On the other hand, it makes sense to move _PyTuple_ITEMS to (3) or even (2). > PyTuple_ITEMS(t) seems better than &PyTuple_GET_ITEM(t, 0). Please don't use &PyTuple_GET_ITEM() or _PyTuple_ITEMS(). It prevents to use a more efficient storage for tuple. Something like: https://pythoncapi.readthedocs.io/optimization_ideas.html#specialized-list-for-small-integers PyPy already has the issue right now. Victor -- Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.
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