On 1/24/2019 6:16 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote: > On 1/24/2019 5:52 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> +1. If it's something that the peephole optimizer is already allowed >> to change (eg "1"+"1" is constant-folded) and there is absolutely no >> way that it can ever be changed at run time, then raising at compile >> time can't hurt [1]. It'd be as implementation-dependent and >> version-dependent as the peephole optimizer itself. > > It would be a change if the code is never called. I'm not sure we care > about code that's never called, but it is a change. > Which Chris already pointed out, in some text that I inadvertently deleted. I didn't catch his meaning, which is my fault. Eric
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