On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jeremiah Vivian <nohackingofkrow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So `ord` is already a really fast function with (last check before this > thread was posted) 166 nsec per loop. But I'm wondering... doing `ord(a)` > produces this bytecode: > > 2 4 LOAD_NAME 1 (ord) > > 6 LOAD_NAME 0 (a) > > 8 CALL_FUNCTION 1 > > 10 POP_TOP > > 12 LOAD_CONST 1 (None) > > 14 RETURN_VALUE > But doing `+a` only produces this: > > 2 4 LOAD_NAME 0 (a) > > 6 UNARY_POSITIVE > > 8 POP_TOP > > 10 LOAD_CONST 1 (None) > > 12 RETURN_VALUE > So an operator has its own bytecode, doesn't need to `LOAD_*` a function, and > doesn't have the impact on performance when converting arguments to the > format of the (after `POP()`ing every argument) TOS function and then calling > that function. And also, the unary `+` of strings only copies strings, which > should be redundant in most cases. Maybe `ord` can take the place of unary > `+` in strings? >
-1. It's unnecessary optimization for an uncommon case, abuse of syntax (it's even worse than JavaScript using +"123" to force it to be a number), and illogical - why should +"a" be the integer 97? 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/Y3YSNBXDMNGR6SSSIVRSLET3ZIR6EZYK/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
