On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 07:48:27 -0800 > Guido van Rossum <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Serhiy Storchaka <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > 18.11.13 07:53, Tim Peters написав(ла): > > > > > > - Some easy sanity checking due to the tiny redundancy (if the byte > > >> immediately following the current frame is not a FRAME opcode, the > > >> pickle is corrupt; and also corrupt if a FRAME opcode is encountered > > >> _inside_ the current frame). > > >> > > > > > > For efficient unpickling a FRAME opcode followed by 8-byte count > should be > > > *last* thing in a frame (unless it is a last frame). > > > > > > > I don't understand that. > > > > Clearly the framing is the weakest point of the PEP (== elicits the most > > bikeshedding). I am also unsure about the value of framing when pickles > are > > written to strings. > > It hasn't much value in that case, but the cost is also small (8 bytes > every 64KB, roughly). > That's small if your pickle is large, but for small pickles it can add up. Still, not enough to reject the PEP. Just get Tim to agree with you, or switch to Tim's proposal. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
