Hi, Some languages (C#, java) do the reverse by removing assertions if we don't tell compiler to keep them. Personnaly, I find this solution relatively accurate as I expect assertions not to be run in production.
It would be painful to have this behaviour in python now, but I hope we'll keep a way to remove assertions and find interesting the solution of specific flags (--omit-debug, --omit-asserts and --omit-docstrings). cheers, Grégory 2013/11/16 Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> > Personally I think that none of the -O* should be removing asserts. It > feels > like a foot gun to me. I’ve seen more than one codebase that would be > completely broken under -O* because they used asserts without even knowing > -O* existed. > > Removing __debug__ blogs and doc strings I don’t think is as big of a deal, > although removing doc strings can break code as well. > > On Nov 16, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 17 November 2013 01:46, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > >> I agree that conflating the two doesn't help the discussion. > >> While removing docstrings may be beneficial on memory-constrained > >> devices, I can't remember a single situation where I've wanted to > >> remove asserts on a production system. > > > > While I actually agree that having separate flags for --omit-debug, > > --omit-asserts and --omit-docstrings would make more sense than the > > current optimization levels, Maciej first proposed killing off -OO > > (where the most significant effect is removing docstrings which can > > result in substantial program footprint reductions for embedded > > systems), and only later switched to asking about removing asserts > > (part of -O, which also removes blocks guarded by "if __debug__", both > > of which help embedded systems preserve precious ROM space, although > > to a lesser degree than removing docstrings can save RAM). > > > > One of the most important questions to ask when proposing the removal > > of something is "What replacement are we offering for those users that > > actually need (or even just think they need) this feature?". Sometimes > > the answer is "Nothing", sometimes it's something that only covers a > > subset of previous use cases, and sometimes it's a complete functional > > equivalent with an improved spelling. But not asking the question at > > all (or, worse, dismissing the concerns of affected users as > > irrelevant and uninteresting) is a guaranteed way to annoy the very > > people that actually rely on the feature that is up for removal or > > replacement, when you *really* want them engaged and clearly > > explaining their use cases. > > > > Cheers, > > Nick. > > > > -- > > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > > _______________________________________________ > > Python-Dev mailing list > > Python-Dev@python.org > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald%40stufft.io > > > ----------------- > Donald Stufft > PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 > DCFA > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/apieum%40gmail.com > >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com