On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:43 PM Jim J. Jewett <jimjjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suggest being a little more explicit (even blatant) that the particular 
> details of:
> [snip]
> are not only Cpython-specific, but are also private implementation details 
> that are expected to change in subsequent versions.

Excellent point.

> Ideally, things like the interned string dictionary or the constants from a 
> pyc file will be not merely immortal, but stored in an immortal-only memory 
> page, so that they won't be flushed or CoW-ed when a nearby non-immortal 
> object is modified.

That's definitely worth looking into.

> Getting those details right will make a difference to performance, and you 
> don't want to be locked in to the first draft.

Yep, that is one big reason I was trying to avoid spelling out every
detail of our plan. :)

-eric
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/535SKVXHPFZQMKRB2YC6UVQLN2TZ4RMY/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to