On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:44:01 AM UTC-4, BartC wrote: > On 21/03/2016 12:08, Ned Batchelder wrote: > > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 9:15:32 PM UTC-4, BartC wrote: > >> > >> A tokeniser along those lines in Python, with most of the bits filled > >> in, is here: > >> > >> http://pastebin.com/dtM8WnFZ > >> > > > > Bart, we get it: you don't like the trade-offs that Python has made. > ... > > You don't like Python. Can we leave it at that? > > On the contrary, I do like it. It's just a shame it's made those > trade-offs as a bit more speed would have made it more useful to me. > > And apart from my personal opinions, if anyone else is engaged in > implementing any of this stuff, they might be interested in what plain > byte-code can achieve. > > This tests highlights the benefits of an O(1) switch statement. And of > being able to work with integers, as Python seems to discourage that. > (It seems silly to have to compare strings because using ints could be > slower!)
You are simply reiterating (again!) the trade-offs you don't like. What is the point? Please stop. --Ned. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list