> I saw now that I missed the biggest problem with your proposal: yet again you
> deliberately throw away errors. I'm talking about making Python code _less_
> error prone, while you seem to want to make it _more_.
>
> Beyond the belligerent tone, is there an actual POINT here?
Yes, there is a point: you keep insisting that I shut up about my ideas and you
motivate it by giving first totally broken code, then error prone and slow code
and then you are upset that I point out these facts. I think it's a bit much
when you complain about the tone after all that. Especially after you wrote "If
someone steps out of line of being polite and professional, just ignore it" the
9th of September in this very thread.
> It's the middle of the night and I'm on my tablet.
Maybe you could just reply later?
> I'm not sure what sort of error, or in what circumstance, my toy code "throws
> away" errors. Actually saying so rather than playing a coy guessing game
> would be helpful.
You explicitly wrote your code so that it tries to pass a local variable "d"
that does not exist and the function does not take, and it doesn't crash on
that. I guess you forgot? You've done it several times now and I've already
pointed this out.
> So for CPython 3.6 it's 2.587355/0.003079 = 840x times slower
> and pypy: 1.177555/0.002565 = 460x slower
>
> Yes, for functions whose entire body consists of `pass`, adding pretty much
> any cost to unpacking the arguments will show down the operation a lot.
If you add sleep(0.001) it's still a factor 1.3! This is NOT a trivial
overhead.
> Changing the basic syntax of Python to optimize NOOPs really is a non-starter.
This is not a belligerent tone you think?
> In general, changing syntax at all to avoid something easily accomplished
> with existing forms is—and should be—a very high barrier to cross.
Sure. I'm not arguing that it should be a low barrier, I'm arguing that it's
worth it. And I'm trying to discuss alternatives.
> I haven't used macropy. I should play with it. I'm guessing it could be used
> to create a zero-cost `use()` that had exactly the same API as my toy `use()`
> function. If so, you could starting using and publishing a toy version today
> and provide the optimized version as an alternative also.
Let me quote my mail from yesterday:
"3. I have made a sort-of implementation with MacroPy:
https://github.com/boxed/macro-kwargs/blob/master/test.py I think this is a
dead end, but it was easy to implement and fun to try!"
Let me also clarify another point: I wanted to open up the discussion to people
who are interested in the general problem and just discuss some ideas. I am not
at this point trying to get a PEP through. If that was my agenda, I would have
already submitted the PEP. I have not.
/ Anders
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
