On 5/14/08, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > > > So, should Cython save (in the Py3 case) > > byte strings in their internal table? > > > There are two separate things going on here: > > 1) The reason for keeping string literals in a table is so > that you don't have to create a new string object every > time they're used. This would seem to apply to bytes just > as much as strings. > > 2) Interning of strings that are likely to be used in > dynamic name lookups. Since all names are strings, this > only applies to strings, not bytes. > > > > At this point, I'm not sure if meging the string tables was a good > > idea. > > > I don't even see how you *can* merge them, since strings > and bytes are completely different types in py3k.
Indeed, I agree with you. Then, tell me your opinion about this (in the Py3 case): - Indentifiers and (unicode) string literals can (and should) managed in the same table. This way, 'a.foo' will be as efficient as 'getattr(a, "foo")' - Byte strings are completelly different guys, so they should be managed in a way similar to integer literals are. -- Lisandro Dalcín --------------- Centro Internacional de Métodos Computacionales en Ingeniería (CIMEC) Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (INTEC) Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) PTLC - Güemes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594 _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
