On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:31:56 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > Here is an instance of someone who would like a certain optimization to be > > dis-able-able > > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2014-February/667169.html > > To the best of my knowledge its nothing to do with unicode or with jmf.
> It doesn't, and it has only to do with testing. I've had similar > issues at times; for instance, trying to benchmark one language or > language construct against another often means fighting against an > optimizer. (How, for instance, do you figure out what loop overhead > is, when an empty loop is completely optimized out?) This is nothing > whatsoever to do with Unicode, nor to do with the optimization that > Python and Pike (and maybe other languages) do with the storage of > Unicode strings. This was said in response to Terry's > CPython has many other functions with special-case optimizations and > 'fast paths' for common, simple cases. For instance, (some? all?) number > operations are optimized for pairs of integers. Do you call these > 'strange beasties'? which evidently vanished -- optimized out :D -- in multiple levels of quoting -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
