But to the OP, this is not considered a bug.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 07:59 Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 21.04.18 17:47, Chris Angelico пише:
> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Serhiy Storchaka
> wrote:
> >> 21.04.18 13:42, Chris Angelico пише:
> >>>
> >>> What you're seeing there is actually the
21.04.18 17:47, Chris Angelico пише:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
21.04.18 13:42, Chris Angelico пише:
What you're seeing there is actually the peephole optimizer at work.
Since 3.7 constant folding is the AST optimizer work. The end result is the
same in most
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 21.04.18 13:42, Chris Angelico пише:
>>
>> What you're seeing there is actually the peephole optimizer at work.
>
>
> Since 3.7 constant folding is the AST optimizer work. The end result is the
> same in most cases though.
>
> Other optim
21.04.18 13:42, Chris Angelico пише:
What you're seeing there is actually the peephole optimizer at work.
Since 3.7 constant folding is the AST optimizer work. The end result is
the same in most cases though.
Other optimization takes place here too. Constants strings that look
like identifi
On 21 April 2018 at 11:42, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Yinbin Ma wrote:
>> Hi all:
>>
>> I notice that if concatenating two stringobjects, PVM will not check the
>> dictionary of interned string. For example:
>>
> a = "qwerty"
> b = "qwe"
> c = "rty"
>
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Yinbin Ma wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I notice that if concatenating two stringobjects, PVM will not check the
> dictionary of interned string. For example:
>
a = "qwerty"
b = "qwe"
c = "rty"
d = b+c
id(a)
> 4572089736
id(d)
> 457276
Hi all:
I notice that if concatenating two stringobjects, PVM will not check the
dictionary of interned string. For example:
>>> a = "qwerty"
>>> b = "qwe"
>>> c = "rty"
>>> d = b+c
>>> id(a)
4572089736
>>> id(d)
457276
>>> e = "".join(["qwe","rty"])
>>> id(e)
4546460280
But if concatenating