Message195549
| Author | arigo |
|---|---|
| Recipients | arigo, eric.snow, mark.dickinson, serhiy.storchaka, zach.ware |
| Date | 2013-08-18.07:56:42 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1376812602.56.0.159196539389.issue18712@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
...but yes, it's very obvious that exposing _PyType_Lookup() to pure Python is the right thing to do here. This is a central part of the way Python works internally, after all. Moreover, sorry about my previous note: if we started today to write PyPy, then it would be enough to have the pure Python version of operator.index(), based on the newly exposed _PyType_Lookup(). With PyPy's JIT, there is no real performance loss. Some of my confusion came from the fact that there *would* be serious performance loss if we had to work with the pure Python looping-over-__mro__-and-fishing-in-__dict__ version. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2013-08-18 07:56:42 | arigo | set | recipients: + arigo, mark.dickinson, eric.snow, zach.ware, serhiy.storchaka |
| 2013-08-18 07:56:42 | arigo | set | messageid: <1376812602.56.0.159196539389.issue18712@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013-08-18 07:56:42 | arigo | link | issue18712 messages |
| 2013-08-18 07:56:42 | arigo | create | |