It is certainly more like 50% on trivial functions than 10%. Given that I have this mostly written I think we can probably get it into 2.1.
-----Original Message----- From: users-boun...@lists.ironpython.com [mailto:users-boun...@lists.ironpython.com] On Behalf Of Michael Foord Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 6:36 AM To: Discussion of IronPython Subject: Re: [IronPython] Frames in IronPython Jeff Hardy wrote: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Curt Hagenlocher <c...@hagenlocher.org> > wrote: > >> As I understand it, the biggest problem with getframe has always been >> its performance implications. Would you want all IronPython code to >> be slowed down so that this feature is supported? What if you needed >> to opt-in on the command-line with a -X:getframe? >> > > It depends on how big the speed hit is and how much work it is to mark > frames support optional. If the speed hit is only 10%, then I don't > think it's worth the effort to make it optional unless it's trivial to > make it so. If it's 50% then it should definitely be optional. I can > deal with it being optional, if that's the case. > Well, I wouldn't be happy with a 10% slowdown. :-) I tend to agree with Seo, use of Python stack frames indicates a poorly designed API. On the other hand I understand the problem, so at least optional support would be nice. Michael Foord > >> Also, I don't see a lot of votes here. *wink* >> > > I'm hoping this little PSA will help change that. :) > > - Jeff > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.ironpython.com > http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com > -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
