[Python-Dev] Updated PEP 509
Jim J. Jewett
jimjjewett at gmail.com
Mon Apr 18 07:46:44 EDT 2016
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Mon Apr 18 07:46:44 EDT 2016
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] [Question][Asyncio] Process + Threads + asyncio... has sense?
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Updated PEP 509
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at gmail.com> wrote: > * I mentionned that version++ must be atomic, and that in the case of > CPython, it's done by the GIL Better; if those methods *already* hold the GIL, it is worth saying "already", to indicate that the change is not expensive. > * I removed the dict[key]=value; dict[key]=value. It's really a > micro-optimization. I also fear that Raymond will complain because it > adds an if in the hot code of dict, and the dict type is very > important for Python performance. That is an acceptable answer. Though I really do prefer explicitly *refusing to promise* either way when the replacement/replaced objects are ==. dicts (and other collections) already assume sensible ==, even explicitly allowing self-matches of objects that are not equal to themselves. I don't like the idea of making new promises that violate (or rely on violations of) that sensible == assumption. -jJ
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] [Question][Asyncio] Process + Threads + asyncio... has sense?
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Updated PEP 509
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list