I meant avoiding the overhead of the expression evaluation enclosed in the
assert itself, not the active/disabled state (that comes at virtually no cost).
ex:
>>> runtime_assert( { i:None for i in range( 10000000 ) } )
By using the syntax you describe ('boolean and not expr'), you loose all the
benefit of the Python grammar:
- self-contained
- able to catch semantic/syntax bugs
ex:
>>> f=1
>>> runtime_assert( f==1 )
>>> runtime_assert( f=1 )
File "<stdin>", line 1
runtime_assert( f=1 )
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
-----Original Message-----
From: Python-ideas <python-ideas-bounces+eloi.gaudry=fft...@python.org> On
Behalf Of Serhiy Storchaka
Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2018 2:05 PM
To: python-ideas@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Runtime assertion with no overhead when not active
05.05.18 11:04, Eloi Gaudry пише:
> Briefly, the idea is to add a new assert that can be switch on/off
> depending on some variable/mechanism at runtime. The whole point of
> this assert is that it should not bring any overhead when off, i.e.
> by avoiding evaluating the expression enclosed in the runtime
> assert. It thus relies on Python grammar.
You should have an overhead for checking if it is switched on/off, isn't? And
this overhead is virtually the same as testing the value of the global boolean
variable.
> runtime_assert( expr )
>
> #would result in if expr and runtime_assert_active:
>
> print RuntimeAssertionError()
How this will be different from
if debug and not expr:
print(RuntimeAssertionError())
?
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
