On 11/28/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Some comments: > > > > - 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). > > One other thought: The special constants could themselves be nothing > more than the offset into the PyTypeObject struct, i.e.: > > #define SPECMETHOD_NEW ((const char*)offsetof(PyTypeObject,tp_new))
I think this would cause too many issues with backwards compatibility. I like the idea much better to use special names (e.g. starting with a "."). > In the PyType_Ready code, you would see if the method name had a value > of less than sizeof(PyTypeObject); If so, then it's a special method > name, and you fill in the struct at the specified offset. > > So the interpretation of the table could be very simple and fast. It has > a slight disadvantage from the approach of using actual string names for > special methods, in that it doesn't allow the VM to silently > promote/demote methods to 'special' status. I think the interpretation will be fast enough (or else what you said about premature optimization earlier wouldn't be correct. :-) -- --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
