Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> added the comment: Interesting---thanks for the analysis!
Realistically though, I don't see an iterative version of factorial_part_product as an option for the C patch, without a significant increase in complexity. Daniel's current patch is remarkably clean and simple, and I'd like to keep it that way. I did think about various evil schemes for an iterative version, but didn't come up with anything I'd want to see in the Python codebase. (The worst of these schemes involved using a union of long and PyObject * to try to increase the possibilities for doing simple C long multiplication, and using the fact that you can easily tell the difference between an odd long and a (4-byte aligned) PyObject * just by looking at the last bit. But I'm fairly sure that comes under the 'evil' heading. :) ) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8692> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
