On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 8:49 PM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 08:04:50PM +0900, Inada Naoki wrote: > > > Name lookup is faster than building set in most case. > > So I don't think cost to look name up is important at all. > > But the cost to look up the name is *in addition* to building the set. >
I meant it is negligible so we can just ignore it while this discussion. > If you saw this code in a review: > > t = tuple([1, 2, 3, 4, 5]) > > would you say "that is okay, because the name lookup is smaller than the > cost of building the list"? > > I wouldn't. I would change the code to `(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)`. > * I never said it. I just said just lookup cost is not good reason because you listed name lookup cost for rationale. Please stop strawman. * tuple construction is much faster than set construction. So name lookup speed is more important for tuple. * Constant tuple is much much frequently used than constant set. > > > Proposed literal might have significant efficiency benefit only when: > > > > * It is used in the function scope. and, > > * It can not be optimized by the compiler now. > > Sometimes, now, the compiler *pessimizes* the construction of the frozen > set. See b.p.o #46393. > I saw. And I know all the discussions in the b.p.o. already. But how important it is for Python depends on how often it is used, especially in hot code. Regards, -- Inada Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/DSUYXZBLQ62MMRUYJ2ZNLDXYSEEOGDHW/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
