Hi, On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 12:23:00PM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Feedback (also about misrepresentation of alternatives I don't favor) > is most welcome, either to me directly or as a followup to this post.
So my 2 cents, particularly about when things are computed and ways to control that explicitly: there was a point in time where I could say that I liked Python because language design was not constrained by performance issues. Looks like it's getting a matter of the past, small step by small step. I'll have to get used to mentally filter out 'static' or whatever the keyword will be, liberally sprinkled in programs I read to make them slightly faster. Maybe I should, more constructively, propose to start a thread on the subject of: what would be required to achieve similar effects as the intended one at the implementation level, without strange early-computation semantics? I'm not talking about Psyco stuff here; there are way to do this with reasonably-simple refactorings of global variable accesses. I have experimented a couple of years ago with making them more direct (just like a lot of people did, about the "faster LOAD_GLOBAL" trend). I dropped this as it didn't make things much faster, but it had a nice side-effect: allowing call-backs for binding changes. This would be a good base on top of which to make transparent, recomputed-when-changed constant-folding of simple expressions. Building dicts for switch and keeping them up-to-date... Does it make sense for me to continue this discussion? A bientot, Armin. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
