On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 4:22 AM Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas <python-ideas@python.org> wrote: > > On Oct 23, 2019, at 10:04, Christopher Barker <python...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This talk about optimization is confusing me: > > The main argument for why “a b c”.split() is not good enough, and therefore > we need a new syntax, is that it’s “too slow”. > > Someone earlier in this thread said we could optimize calling split on a > string literal, just as we can and do optimize iterating over a list literal > in a for statement.
I was the one to post it in this thread, but it wasn't my invention - talk of optimizing method calls on literals has been around before. > I agree. That’s why I think “too slow” isn’t a good argument, and to the tiny > extent that it is, “then let’s write an optimizer for the already-common > idiom” is a good answer, not “let’s come up with a whole new syntax that does > the same thing”. > Agreed. The value of creating new syntax is (must be) that it better expresses programmer intent, not that it's easier to optimize. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/HMP2G65MSY3UK6REF7INPBNWSFPEHUFX/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
