On 29 January 2015 at 04:53, Andrea Griffini wrote:
> The names stored in op_names are totally unrelated as they can be attribute
> names, module names, global names; you basically don't know much about them
> unless you also inspect the actual bytecode using them (and the same name
> can be used
The names stored in op_names are totally unrelated as they can be attribute
names, module names, global names; you basically don't know much about them
unless you also inspect the actual bytecode using them (and the same name
can be used in completely different ways in different parts of the same
c
On 28 January 2015 at 21:21, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Andrea Griffini wrote:
>>
>> Sorry if the question is naive, but why is co_names needed? Wouldn't be
>> simpler to just use co_consts?
>
> One reason might be that keeping them separate means
> you can have up to 256 names and 256 consts using
> 1-b
Andrea Griffini wrote:
Sorry if the question is naive, but why is co_names needed? Wouldn't be
simpler to just use co_consts?
One reason might be that keeping them separate means
you can have up to 256 names and 256 consts using
1-byte opcode arguments. Otherwise, you'd be limited
to a total of
Sorry if the question is naive, but why is co_names needed? Wouldn't be
simpler to just use co_consts?
Andrea
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mail
