On 2020-06-30 02:46, Victor Stinner wrote:
You missed the point of the PEP: "It becomes possible to experiment
with more advanced optimizations in CPython than just
micro-optimizations, like tagged pointers."
I don't think experiments are a good motivation.
When the C API is broken, everyone that uses it pays the price -- they
have to update their code. They pay the price even if the experiment
fails, or if it's never started in the first place.
Can we treat the C API not as a place for experiments, but as a stable
foundation to build on?
For example, could we only deprecate the bad parts, but not remove them
until the experiments actually show that they are preventing a
beneficial change?
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/FVATSACB5QPTZS6YLSH5YCHHODJNBLA6/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
