On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I meant that there may be disgustingly > large globals that exceed some maximum size the stack allows. I am to aware of any hard limit on the stack size other than whatever the limit for a contiguous in-memory array may be. > Can you confirm/disprove that the maximum size will be the same after as it > was before? > It is possible to design an artificial program that will have a larger peak memory footprint with batch processing than without, but my argument is that it is unlikely encounter such a program in the wild. > It does not even have to be a frozenset. A set works just as well, > never modified by the produced bytecode. > With the current implementation, precomputed constants must be hashable because the compiler uses a dictionary lookup in order to eliminate duplicates. This is of course just an implementation detail, but it would actually be hard to work around it. _______________________________________________ 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
