On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org> wrote: >>> >>> f_namespaces would be part of the frame, replacing f_builtins, f_globals >>> and f_locals. The indirection of an external object hurts performance, >>> so it would have to be a struct within the frame. The aim is clarity; >>> locals, globals and builtins form a trio, so should be implemented as >>> such. >> >> >> How does replacing three fields with a struct containing three fields >> reduce the size of the frame or the overhead in creating it? >> > > It doesn't. > I think it would improve clarity, but I doubt it is worth the effort. > > The point I really wanted to make is that many of the fields in the > frame object belong elsewhere and adding new fields to the frame object > is generally a bad idea.
But is it? Consider the 'finally' proposal (not that I endorse it!) -- where would they put this info? And what is the cost really? Have you measured it? Or are you just optimizing prematurely? -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
