On 8/13/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt (well, it was just a PyCon-1 T-shirt):
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=709744&group_id=5470&atid=305470
Back then, the end result of that particular change was very tiny, and it wasn't even taking new-style classes into account (which would have made it more complex.) It may be worth re-trying anyway, especially for python-3000: no classic classes to worry about. And quite a lot has changed in the compiler and opcode dispatcher in the mean time. I am completely -1 on getting rid of bound methods, though.
Hmmmm....I wonder if it could be me made to work in a
backwards-compatible way. In other words, suppose the existing logic of
creating a method object were left in place, however the
'obj.instancemethod()' pattern would bypass all of that. In other words,
the compiler would note the combination of the attribute access and the
call, and combine them into an opcode that skips the whole method
creation step. (Maybe it already does this and I'm just being stupid.)
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt (well, it was just a PyCon-1 T-shirt):
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=709744&group_id=5470&atid=305470
Back then, the end result of that particular change was very tiny, and it wasn't even taking new-style classes into account (which would have made it more complex.) It may be worth re-trying anyway, especially for python-3000: no classic classes to worry about. And quite a lot has changed in the compiler and opcode dispatcher in the mean time. I am completely -1 on getting rid of bound methods, though.
--
Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
_______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
