On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 13:04, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >> >> > I don't see how depending on Cython is better than depending on having >> > an existing Python. If the only benefit is semi-readable code, surely >> > we do have source code for the pre-frozen module, and it is just a >> > matter >> > of convincing hg that the bytecode is binary, not text? >> >> Cython-generated C code would likely be more stable (and produce >> compiler errors if it gets stale), whereas importlib.h needs to be >> regenerated with byte code changes. >> >> Having source code has the advantage that it becomes possible to >> single-step through the import process in C debugger. Single-stepping >> with pdb would, of course, be better than that, but I doubt it's >> feasible. >> >> In addition, there might be a performance gain with Cython over ceval. > > > The other benefit is maintainability. In order to hit my roughly 5% startup > speed I had to rewrite chunks of __import__() in C code and then delegate to > importlib's Python code in cases where sys.modules was not hit. Using Cython > would mean that can all go away and the differences between the C and Python > code would become (supposedly) non-existent, making tweaks easier (e.g. when > I made the change to hit sys.modules less when a loader returned the desired > module it was annoying to have to change importlib *and* import.c).
+1 on reducing the complexity of the import code. -eric _______________________________________________ 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
