On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 12:39, Michael Chermside wrote: > Michael Hoffman writes: > > Dare I ask whether the uncompiled versions [of re object methods] should > > be considered for removal in Python 3.0?
> No flames here, but I'd rather leave them. The docs make it clear that > the two sets of functions/methods are equivalent, so the conceptual > overhead is small (at least it doesn't scale with the number of methods > in re). The docs make it clear that the compiled versions are faster, so > serious users should prefer them. But the uncompiled versions are > preferable in one special situation: short simple scripts -- the kind > of thing often done with shell scriping except that Python is Better (TM). > For these uses, performance is irrelevent and it turns a 2-line > construct into a single line. Although it's mildly annoying that the docs describe the compiled method names in terms of the uncompiled functions. I always find myself looking up the regexp object's API only to be shuffled off to the module's API and then having to do the argument remapping myself. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
