On 12/12/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:11 AM 12/12/2006 -0800, Thomas Wouters wrote: >On 12/12/06, Jim Jewett ><<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On 12/8/06, Guido van Rossum <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>wrote: >> > I've been thinking about this too, and I think it's reasonable to let >> > the metaclass provide the dict to be used as locals. > >I do wonder about this though: will it require a particular type (like a >dict)? The current code uses fast locals, Uh, wha? Did this change in Py3K? Python 2.x doesn't do this and can't do it without introducing backward incompatibility. In 2.x, class bodies do NOT use fast locals, any more than module bodies do. In any case, the performance within the class suite isn't especially important; it's rare that there are any loops within a class body, or that one creates classes within frequently-executed loops.
I apologize. It doesn't use STORE_LOCAL. It is, however, executed as a normal function, and uses STORE_NAME. So the impact would be limited to that of changing a function's non-fast locals from a dict to an arbitrary mapping type. (Provided we don't specialcase class creation.) I do wonder why classes don't use fast locals, though. Building the locals dict from the fast locals at the end of the class suite execution seems more logical to me than what happens now... but I agree that it doesn't really matter. -- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
_______________________________________________ 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
