Guido van Rossum wrote: > - Fredrik's solution makes one call per registered method. (I don't > know if the patch he refers to follows that model.) That seems a fair > amount of code for an average type -- I'm wondering if it's too early > to worry about code bloat (I don't think the speed is going to > matter).
too early, I think. and memory is relatively cheap, compare to the costs of upgrade pain, programmer time, and lack of optimization opportunities due to "bare data structures". > - Both solutions proposed require rewriting *all* type initialization. > This is likely to require a tool that can do 99% of the work > automatically (or else extension writers will truly hate us). yup. I think a tool that generates cut-that-and-paste-this instructions for the developer should be good enough, though, and fairly easy to write, for the reasons you give. > Can't we require a C99 compiler and use C99 struct initialization? that won't address the binary compatibility and optimization issues that are the main rationales for my proposal, though. </F> _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
