My preference is for a table-based version over a "lots-of-calls" approach. I think the idea of using predefined (integer) constants instead of string constants fits fine into the table-based approach. However I'm not sure that a string-based approach is necessarily bad -- we use that now for everything that's not a special method after all. I do get the point that the string-based approach uses more memory and needs more processing time.
On 12/2/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Talin wrote: > > > So I don't think it's the case that nobody's even bothered to look at > > Larry's patch > > so are you basing your patch on his work? > > > People have looked at the patch and suggested taking a different > > approach. > > really? I haven't seen much of a consensus for the string-literals > instead of constants approach, especially not from experienced extension > writers. personally, I think it's butt-ugly, a lot more error-prone > than any alternative, and I also doubt that it'll save much space in > practice. it also ignores history; the Xt developers tried the same > thing, and ended up adding #define's for all their string literals to > get a least a little help from the compiler... > > </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/guido%40python.org > -- --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
