[Python-3000] A better way to initialize PyTypeObject (original) (raw)
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Sat Dec 2 23:49:03 CET 2006
- Previous message: [Python-3000] A better way to initialize PyTypeObject
- Next message: [Python-3000] A better way to initialize PyTypeObject
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
My preference is for a table-based version over a "lots-of-calls" approach. I think the idea of using predefined (integer) constants instead of string constants fits fine into the table-based approach. However I'm not sure that a string-based approach is necessarily bad -- we use that now for everything that's not a special method after all. I do get the point that the string-based approach uses more memory and needs more processing time.
On 12/2/06, Fredrik Lundh <fredrik at pythonware.com> wrote:
Talin wrote:
> So I don't think it's the case that nobody's even bothered to look at > Larry's patch so are you basing your patch on his work? > People have looked at the patch and suggested taking a different > approach. really? I haven't seen much of a consensus for the string-literals instead of constants approach, especially not from experienced extension writers. personally, I think it's butt-ugly, a lot more error-prone than any alternative, and I also doubt that it'll save much space in practice. it also ignores history; the Xt developers tried the same thing, and ended up adding #define's for all their string literals to get a least a little help from the compiler...
Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000 at python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/guido%40python.org
-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
- Previous message: [Python-3000] A better way to initialize PyTypeObject
- Next message: [Python-3000] A better way to initialize PyTypeObject
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]