Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> added the comment: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Raymond Hettinger <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > ISTM, we should just provide basic caching with reasonable space consumption > (i.e. not huge) that gives improvements to common use cases (like I've done > with the fnmatch and re module) and let programmers with unusual cases add > their own caching options rather that be tied into our choice of lru vs lfu > or whatnot.
A very good point! Perhaps we should note that somewhere? I'm not sure where though, unless we just mention it in the docs for the relevant modules.. Going the other way (using a smaller, or no, cache), perhaps in addition to the new hit/miss attributes, the cache decorators should expose the original function to allow the cache to be bypassed? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9396> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
