On Wed, Mar 3, 2021, at 04:09, Barry Scott wrote:
> I was thinking of the C functions that are executed in ceval.c to run
> the interpreter for any byte code.
In that case, it's not clear how your proposed syntax would not have the same
overhead [especially your suggestion of a += operator]
> On 2 Mar 2021, at 23:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>
> [Barry]
>> All python byte code is interpreted by calling functions. They take
>> time and resources.
>
> That's not entirely correct. Literals such as text strings, ints and
> floats get compiled directly into the byte-code. Now of
Memz,
Please keep your responses on the mailing list.
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 08:07:39PM +, Barry Scott wrote:
> > On 2 Mar 2021, at 13:04, Memz wrote:
> >
> > There is no specific scenario it solves. The lack of efficiency of
> > the timed code should speak for itself. Non-mutable bytes
On 3/1/21, mmax42...@gmail.com wrote:
> And there is no way to make a mutable bytes object without a function call.
Since a code object is immutable, the proposed bytearray display form
would still require an internal operation that constructs a bytearray
from a bytes object. For example,
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 5:03 AM wrote:
>
> Currently, the only way to concatenate an integer to a bytes object is by
> converting the integer to bytes with a function call before concatenating.
> And there is no way to make a mutable bytes object without a function call.
>
> I propose an
On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 06:01:24PM -, mmax42...@gmail.com wrote:
> I propose an array-type string like the, or for the bytearray. It would work
> as a mutable b-string, as
[...]
> This would be processed the same as, or would be the bytearray,
Then just use bytearray.
I think the only new
We where no longer on the ideas list...
> On 2 Mar 2021, at 13:04, Memz wrote:
>
> There is no specific scenario it solves. The lack of efficiency of the timed
> code should speak for itself. Non-mutable bytes is a limit of python, since
> it's reliant on using function calls.
>
>
On 2/03/21 7:01 am, mmax42...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, the only way to concatenate an integer to a bytes object is by
converting the integer to bytes with a function call before concatenating.
No, it's not:
>>> b = bytearray()
>>> b.append(42)
>>> b
bytearray(b'*')
--
Greg
> On 1 Mar 2021, at 18:01, mmax42...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Currently, the only way to concatenate an integer to a bytes object is by
> converting the integer to bytes with a function call before concatenating.
> And there is no way to make a mutable bytes object without a function call.
>
>
