Travis Oliphant wrote: >> Probably the most interesting thing now would be for Travis to review >> it, and see whether it makes things easier to handle for the Numeric >> scalar types (given the amount of code the patch deleted from the >> builtin and standard library data types, hopefully the benefits to >> Numeric will be comparable). > > > I noticed most of the checks for PyInt where removed in the patch. If I > remember correctly, I left these in for "optimization." Other than > that, I think the patch is great.
You're right - there was a fast path based on PyInt_Check in _PyEval_SliceIndex that got lost, which I'll add back in. I'll also add fast paths for PyInt_Check to the functions in abstract.c, too. The other PyInt_Check's (in slot_nb_index and instance_index) were there to check that __index__ returned the right thing. The check was still there in slot_nb_index, but I'd incorrectly removed it from instance_index. I'll add that one back in, too. Once that's done, I'll update the tracker item and reassign to Tim for a review. Cheers, Nick. > As far as helping with NumPy, I think it will help to be able to remove > special-checks for all the different integer-types. But, this has not > yet been done in the NumPy code. > > -Travis > > > -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org _______________________________________________ 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