El lun, 19 abr 2021 a las 14:17, Larry Hastings (<la...@hastings.org>)
escribió:
> On 4/19/21 1:37 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> On 4/19/21 10:51 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
> Something analogous /could/ happen in the PEP 649 branch but currently
> doesn't. When running Inada Noki's benchmark, there are a total of nine
> possible annotations code objects. Except, each function generated by the
> benchmark has a unique name, and I incorporate that name into the name
> given to the code object (f"{function_name}.__co_annotations__"). Since
> each function name is different, each code object name is different, so
> each code object /hash/ is different, and since they aren't /exact/
> duplicates they are never consolidated.
>
>
> I hate anonymous functions, so the name is very important to me. The
> primary code base I work on does have hundreds of methods with the same
> signature -- unfortunately, many of the also have the same name (four
> levels of super() calls is not unusual, and all to the same
> read/write/create parent methods from read/write/create child methods). In
> such a case would the name make a meaningful difference?
>
> Or maybe the name can be store when running in debug mode, and not stored
> with -O ?
>
>
> I think it needs to have *a* name. But if it made a difference, perhaps
> it could use f"{function_name}.__co_annotations__" normally, and simply
> "__co_annotations__" with -O.
>
> Note also that this is the name of the annotations code object, although I
> think the annotations function object reuses the name too. Anyway, under
> normal circumstances, the Python programmer would have no reason to
> interact directly with the annotations code/function object, so it's not
> likely it will affect them one way or another. The only time they would
> see it would be, say, if the calculation of an annotation threw an
> exception, in which case it seems like seeing
> f"{function_name}.__co_annotations__" in the traceback might be a helpful
> clue in diagnosing the problem.
>
If the line numbers in the traceback are right, I'm not sure the function
name would make much of a difference.
>
> I'd want to see some real numbers before considering changes here. If it
> has a measurable and beneficial effect on real-world code, okay! let's
> change it! But my suspicion is that it doesn't really matter.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> */arry*
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ZAPCP4MFDOF34E3G2TWAVY7JUQRHDOOB/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
_______________________________________________
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/V3N5ILAED6CWOEXL6L7XHRTUIS3AKN4M/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
