On 11/28/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Why not? This is the Py3k list -- there is no hope for binary compatibility with 2.x. AFAIU the C99 approach can be easily binary compatible between 3.0, 3.1 and beyond -- please explain if this is not so. And what's the optimization issue? Do you mean the ccasional NULL poitner check? Once we make PyType_Ready() obligatory, it can do the same thing. Or whatever else you are thinking of. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
