[Python-Dev] Re: Repealing PEP 509 (Add a private version to dict)

Hi, I wrote the PEP 509 as part of my abandonned "FAT Python" project which was a ahead-of-time optimizer using runtime guards to deoptimize code. I planed to abandon this PEP as well, but the dictionary version was used by LOAD_GLOBAL opcode cache which made the version useful and so the PEP was

[Python-Dev] Re: Repealing PEP 509 (Add a private version to dict)

On 7/29/21 1:32 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 3:47 AM Mark Shannon > wrote: Hi everyone, I would like to repeal PEP 509. We don't really have a process for repealing a PEP. Presumably I would just write another PEP. Yeah, it's probably a

[Python-Dev] Re: Repealing PEP 509 (Add a private version to dict)

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 3:47 AM Mark Shannon wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to repeal PEP 509. We don't really have a process for > repealing a PEP. Presumably I would just write another PEP. > Yeah, it's probably a new PEP explaining why the first PEP turned out to not work out since it

[Python-Dev] Re: Repealing PEP 509 (Add a private version to dict)

On 7/29/2021 6:17 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: On Jul 29, 2021, at 05:55, Steve Dower wrote: Maybe we should have a "Type" other than Standards Track for PEPs that are documenting implementation designs, rather than requirements for standardisation? Wouldn’t Informational fill that need? Perha

[Python-Dev] Re: Repealing PEP 509 (Add a private version to dict)

On Jul 29, 2021, at 05:55, Steve Dower wrote: > > Maybe we should have a "Type" other than Standards Track for PEPs that are > documenting implementation designs, rather than requirements for > standardisation? Wouldn’t Informational fill that need? -Barry signature.asc Description: Messag

[Python-Dev] Re: Repealing PEP 509 (Add a private version to dict)

Hi Steve, On 29/07/2021 1:55 pm, Steve Dower wrote: On 7/29/2021 11:41 AM, Mark Shannon wrote: The dictionary version number is currently unused in CPython and just wastes memory. I am not claiming that we will never need it, just that we shouldn't be required to have it. It should be an intern

[Python-Dev] Re: Repealing PEP 509 (Add a private version to dict)

On 7/29/2021 11:41 AM, Mark Shannon wrote: The dictionary version number is currently unused in CPython and just wastes memory. I am not claiming that we will never need it, just that we shouldn't be required to have it. It should be an internal implementation detail that we can add or remove de

[Python-Dev] Re: Repealing PEP 509 (Add a private version to dict)

+1 2021年7月29日(木) 19:46 Mark Shannon : > Hi everyone, > > I would like to repeal PEP 509. We don't really have a process for > repealing a PEP. Presumably I would just write another PEP. > > Before I do so, I would like to know if anyone thinks we should keep > PEP 509. > > The dictionary version

[Python-Dev] Re: Repealing PEP 509 (Add a private version to dict)

Maybe you should also mention that in 3.11 we’re introducing a new concept, dict *keys* version, which is more useful (for the specializing interpreter anyway). On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 12:47 Mark Shannon wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to repeal PEP 509. We don't really have a process for