Josiah Carlson writes: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull > <step...@xemacs.org> wrote:
> > Some people complained, but we considered this well worthwhile (moving > > one "type bit" from the car to the header allowed Lisp integers to > > cover the range -1G to +1G, and there are a surprising number of > > people who would like to use XEmacs on files >512MB). I suppose that > > Steve's proposal probably has similar impact on binaries and running > > instances of Python, but he hasn't given any use cases for list.pop(0) > > to compared to doubling the size of usable buffers. > The choice that emacs made is great for emacs; Emacs hasn't made that choice, XEmacs did. I believe Emacs is still "restricted" to 128MB, or maybe 256MB, buffers. They recently had an opportunity to increase integer size, and thus maximum buffer size, but refused it. It's not a no-brainer. > It's great that you support Steve H's proposal, but can we keep the > discussion on why this would be good for Python, I don't support it or oppose it (I wouldn't notice the increased overhead myself, but I have no use case for O(1) list.pop(0)). I'm giving some figures on a similar change (adding a single pointer to a previously low-overhead structure used in large numbers in some applications), and pointing out that this was good for XEmacs only because there was a rather big increase in capability in a use-case that people can sympathize with even if they don't need it themselves. I hope that this example will help Steve H understand why he needs to give real use-cases, or if he doesn't know of any, give up. _______________________________________________ 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
