Le mardi 30 novembre 2010 à 09:32 -0500, Alexander Belopolsky a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:46:33 -0500
> > Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> In practical terms, UCD comes at a price. The unicodedata module size
> >> is over 700K on my machine. This is almost half the size of the
> >> python executable and by far the largest extension module. (only CJK
> >> encodings come close.) Making builtins depend on the largest
> >> extension module for operation does not strike me as sound design.
> >
> > Well, do they depend on it? _PyUnicode_EncodeDecimal seems to depend
> > only on Objects/unicodectype.c.
>
> My mistake. That was a late night post. I wonder why unicodedata.so
> is so big then.
>
> It must be character names:
>
> $ python -v
> >>> '\N{DIGIT ONE}'
> dlopen("/.../unicodedata.so", 2);
> import unicodedata # dynamically loaded from /.../unicodedata.so
> '1'
From a quick peek using hexdump, character names seem to only account
for 1/4 of the module size.
That said, I don't think the size is very important. For any non-trivial
Python application, the size of unicodedata will be negligible compared
to the size of Python objects.
Regards
Antoine.
_______________________________________________
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
