Fredrik Lundh 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.
I agree with this, especially given that I think that this should be *immediately* backported to 2.6, so that developers can gradually transition over; So that by the time Py3K comes out, there will be fewer existing libraries to convert. > 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 > Python-3000@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/talin%40acm.org > _______________________________________________ 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
