Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sat Mar 12 12:28:04 CET 2011

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Suggest reverting today's checkin (recursive constant folding in the peephole optimizer)
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Suggest reverting today's checkin (recursive constant folding in the peephole optimizer)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Mark Dickinson <dickinsm at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can also see the case for ripping out the peepholer entirely.  But
> reverting Antoine's patch seems like a step backwards.

+1 to what Mark says here.

If the day comes when the peepholer can be ripped out in favour of AST
based optimisation, then yay. In the meantime, having it work as
consistently as possible in picking up and optimising literal
expressions makes for potentially valuable micro-optimisations that
people don't have to worry about doing by hand.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

---

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Suggest reverting today's checkin (recursive constant folding in the peephole optimizer)
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Suggest reverting today's checkin (recursive constant folding in the peephole optimizer)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list