Hi
Steve D'Aprano started this thread on 16 Jan, referencing
https://bugs.python.org/issue46393.
In the 95th message in this thread, on 27 Jan, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I think for many of us (specifically me, but I don't think I'm alone) it's
> equally important that we aren't persuaded that there's a need for a
> frozenset literal great enough to overcome the normal reluctance
> to add syntax. A number of important cases are already optimized
> to frozensets, and use cases and (more important) benchmarks showing
> that this optimization is important enough to add syntax so the
> programmer can hand-code it are mostly to entirely lacking.
>
On 17 Jan, Serhiy Storchaka wrote to the b.p.o issue Steve D'Aprano
referenced:
As Steven have noted the compiler-time optimization is not applicable here
> because name frozenset is resolved at run-time.
In these cases where a set of constants can be replaced with a frozenset of
> constants (in "x in {1,2,3}" and in "for x in {1,2,3}") the compiler does
> it.
And I don't think there is an issue which is worth changing the language.
> Creating a frozenset of constants is pretty rare, and it is even more rare
> in tight loops. The most common cases (which are pretty rare anyway) are
> already covered.
This is message 96 in this thread. Perhaps something bad (or good) will
happen when we get to message 100.
https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/27/linux_999_commits/
--
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
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/S2ARN3TXNFYGTSZIZAMH7DPPSR373EDZ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
