Tres Seaver wrote at 2005-5-27 08:22 -0400:
...
As a local patch, this isn't too bad (one could even package it as a
do-nothing-after-initialization product). However, no redistributed
product code should rely on the presence of a patched 'hasattr', but
should use the 3 argument getattr instead.
Jim Fulton wrote at 2005-5-27 11:49 -0400:
...
I'm sure this was an unintentional non-acceptance. It would be
a lot easier if Dieter became a contributor and checked this in
himself.
You know the unqualified indemnification clause concerning
patents it preventing me...
--
Dieter
Paul Winkler wrote at 2005-5-27 11:02 -0400:
...
def safe_hasattr(obj, attr, acquired=True, _marker=[]):
if not acquired:
obj = aq_inner(aq_explicit(obj))
This should be obj = aq_base(obj).
The aq_explicit(aq_inner(...)) dance is only necessary in
untrusted code as aq_base is not
Stefan H. Holek wrote at 2005-5-27 10:59 +0100:
A TALES expression may be prohibitively expensive in any case, no
matter how simple it is kept. Please make sure to do some comparative
profiling. Cache keys are recomputed on every call of the script,
AFAICS. The thought of doing this in
Tim Peters wrote at 2005-5-27 13:49 -0400:
...
def lookup1(arg, _marker=object()):
return _marker
...
_marker = object()
def lookup3(arg):
return _marker
...
lookup1 0.427597
lookup3 0.404399
Do you understand why lookup3 is faster than lookup1?
I had the impression that access to
[Tim Peters]
def lookup1(arg, _marker=object()):
return _marker
...
_marker = object()
def lookup3(arg):
return _marker
...
lookup1 0.427597
lookup3 0.404399
[Dieter Maurer]
Do you understand why lookup3 is faster than lookup1?
I had the impression that access to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote at 2005-5-27 08:22 -0400:
...
As a local patch, this isn't too bad (one could even package it as a
do-nothing-after-initialization product). However, no redistributed
product code should rely on the presence
