> Except that we can't measure the performance of a specification.
> We can only measure the performance of entire implementations.
> I can make an implementation that conforms to PEP 626 that is slower
> than master, or I can make one that's faster :)
> It doesn't change the value of the PEP
Hi Pablo,
On 29/10/2020 11:08 am, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote:
> The new semantics may well result in some slowdowns. That's stated in
the PEP.I don't think I can reliably isolate the effects of the (very
slight)
change in the behavior of f_lineno.
Ok, then let's make at least we measure
> The new semantics may well result in some slowdowns. That's stated in
the PEP. I don't think I can reliably isolate the effects of the (very
slight)
change in the behavior of f_lineno.
Ok, then let's make at least we measure the general slowdowns.
> When you say updating "field", are you
Hi Pablo,
On 29/10/2020 9:56 am, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote:
> Performance compared to what?
Compared before the patch. The comparison that I mentioned is before and
after the PR with the PEP implementation.
PEP 626 changes the line number table and the compiler.
Such a comparison would
> Performance compared to what?
Compared before the patch. The comparison that I mentioned is before and
after the PR with the PEP implementation.
> The current behavior of `f_lineno` is ill-defined, so mimicking it would
be tricky
Maybe I failed to express myself: that's fine, we don't need to
Hi,
That's great. Thanks Pablo.
On 29/10/2020 1:32 am, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote:
On behalf of the steering council, I am happy to announce that as
BDFL-Delegate I am
accepting PEP 626 -- Precise line numbers for debugging and other tools.
I am confident this PEP will result in a better
