On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 11:38, Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org> wrote: > Your opinions without any justifications are welcome, but I need precision. > > For example, saying "I don't want any limits ever for anything" is > precise, but saying "A limit of 1 million is OK provided the performance > improvements justify it" is not. > "A limit of 1 million is OK provided a speed up of 50% can be shown" is > precise, if a bit of a challenge :)
Thanks for clarifying. On that basis, my view is that I'm against any limits being imposed without demonstrated benefits. I don't care *how much* benefit, although I would expect the impact of the limit to be kept in line with the level of benefit. In practical terms, that means I see this proposal as backwards. I'd prefer it if the proposal were defined in terms of "here's a benefit we can achieve if we impose such-and-such a limit". I see little or no value in having a single, common, or even memorable number for the limit. Limits should be set on a case by case basis. Although once we have agreement on the rough level of a limit, setting a value that is memorable (rather than one that reflects an internal implementation detail) makes sense to me. I see basically no justification for having limits at the *language* level. Any limits should be solely defined as CPython implementation details. The most the language definition should say is that implementations are free to impose limits, even if that means that otherwise portable code might fail on a particular implementation. Hopefully that's precise in the way you were after. If you need further clarification, please say. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/XVPOFKQKNP3F5QZVPEVNBHAWRIVMK4FD/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
