But without that new API (basically what Christian proposed) you'd
need
to iterate over the list in order to find the object that belongs to
Pyjion.
Yes.
Yeah, which means the same for my opcode patch... Which unfortunately
will make things slower :(
If we manage to implement my opcode caching idea, we'll have at
least two known users of co_extra. Without a way to claim a
particular
index in co_extra you will have some overhead to locate your objects.
Two things. One, I would want any new API to start with an underscore
so people know we can and will change its semantics as necessary. Two,
Guido would have to re-accept the PEP as this is a shift in the use of
the field if this is how people want to go.
Since this isn't a user-facing/public API feature, are we *really*
forced to accept/implement the PEP before the beta?
I'd be happy to spend some time tomorrow/Monday to hammer out an
alternative approach to co_extra. Let's see if we can find a slightly
better approach.
Yury
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
