On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 8:19 AM Petr Viktorin <encu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23. 02. 22 2:46, Eric Snow wrote: > > [SNIP] > > > So it seems like the bar should be pretty low for this one (assuming > > we get the performance penalty low enough). If it were some massive > > or broadly impactful (or even clearly public) change then I suppose > > you could call the motivation weak. However, this isn't that sort of > > PEP. Yes, but PEPs are not just about complexity, but also impact on users. And "impact" covers backwards-compatibility which includes performance regressions (i.e. making Python slower means it may no longer be a viable for someone with specific performance requirements). So with the initial 4% performance regression it made sense to write a PEP.
_______________________________________________ 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/Z4SXVNRLHFWRPLB4UQZQVW7SKDUJH6GY/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
