Tres Seaver wrote: > Nick Coghlan wrote: >> (and don't worry too much about 3 - it will give me an opportunity to >> road test the functools patch by using it to refactor pprint and check >> the performance implications) > > /me wonders about the performance-criticality of anything using > 'pprint'. Or were you just planning to use it as a means to benchmark > the 'simplegeneric' stuff? I would think something with a lot lower > intrinsic overhead would be a better benchmark target.
Don't read too much into that comment - generics make the most sense in cases (like pprint) where extensibility is a more important feature than raw speed. I'm talking about more subjective impressions of performance as well as things like "if I register a handler for Sequence, is there any performance advantage in registering direct handlers for the builtin subclasses?". Really drastic performance degradations would be on the radar as well - slowing pprint() down by 10% is unlikely to bother anyone, but slowing it down by 100% would be a bad thing (not that I think such a degradation is likely, I'm just trying to give an impression of the magnitude of change I'll be trying to measure). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
