Re: [Python-Dev] Re: Prospective Peephole Transformation

2005-02-19 Thread Aahz
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005, Martin v. L?wis wrote: Fredrik Lundh wrote: I'd say that this explains why it would still make sense to let the code generator change x in (a, b, c) to x == a or x == b or x == c, as long as a, b, and c are all integers. How often does that happen in real code? Dunno

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: Prospective Peephole Transformation

2005-02-18 Thread Skip Montanaro
Based on some ideas from Skip, I had tried transforming the likes of x in (1,2,3) into x in frozenset([1,2,3]) Fredrik savings in what? time or bytecode size? constructed Fredrik micro-benchmarks, or examples from real-life code? Fredrik do we have any statistics on

RE: [Python-Dev] Re: Prospective Peephole Transformation

2005-02-18 Thread Raymond Hettinger
I'm unclear why the list in for x in [1,2,3] or if x not in [1,2,3] can't fairly easily be recognized as a constant and just be placed in the constants array. That part got done (at least for the if-statement). The question is whether the type transformation idea should be carried a step

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: Prospective Peephole Transformation

2005-02-18 Thread Phillip J. Eby
At 04:45 PM 2/18/05 +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote: Phillip J. Eby wrote: Only contains expressions are translated: if x in [1,2,3] currently turns into: if x in (1,2,3) and I'm proposing that it go one step further: if x in Seachset([1,2,3]) ISTM that whenever I use a constant