Terry J. Reedy added the comment: Today in pydev thread "chained assignment weirdity" Guido said http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/135746 "I agree that we should be *very* conservative in changing the meaning of existing opcodes (adding new one is a different story)." ... "Hm. I really don't think that is a good development for Python to compromise in the area of expression evaluation order where side effects are involved." ...
"I haven't looked at the proposed fixes, but I think correctness is more important than saving an extra bytecode (OTOH keeping the set of opcodes the same trumps both). I can't imagine that this extra opcode will be significant in many cases." To which Nick C. replied "Since you've indicated the implementation is in the wrong here and you also want to preserve opcode semantics, I think Skip's patch is correct, but also needs to be applied to dict comprehensions (now we have them). The extra bytecode is only ROT_TWO, which is one of the cheapest we have kicking around." To which Guido said "Ok, somebody go for it! (Also please refer to my pronouncement in the bug" ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11205> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
