Raymond> [Skip]
>> If lists are conceptually like vectors or arrays in other languages
>> and tuples are like C structs or Pascal records, then by converting
>> from list to tuple form you've somehow muddied the data structure
>> water just to take advantage of tuples' immutabi
[Neal]
> I think I implemented this once. I'll try to see if I can find a
> patch. It wasn't too difficult, but I'm not sure if the patch was
> clean.
If the opportunity arises, another worthwhile peepholer buildout would
be to recognize if-elif chains that can be transformed to a single
lookup
[Skip]
> If lists are conceptually like vectors or
> arrays
> in other languages and tuples are like C structs or Pascal records,
then
> by
> converting from list to tuple form you've somehow muddied the data
> structure
> water just to take advantage of tuples' immutability.
In the context of lit
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:49:05 -0600, Skip Montanaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be better to have the peephole optimizer recognize the throwaway
> nature of lists in these contexts:
>
> for elt in [1, 2, 4, 8, 16]:
> ...
>
> if foo in [list, tuple]:
> ...
>
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:49:05 -0600, Skip Montanaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In a python-checkins message, Raymond stated:
>
> Raymond> Replace list of constants with tuples of constants.
>
> I understand the motivation here (the peephole optimizer can convert a tuple
> of constants into
In a python-checkins message, Raymond stated:
Raymond> Replace list of constants with tuples of constants.
I understand the motivation here (the peephole optimizer can convert a tuple
of constants into a single constant that need not be constructed over and
over), but is the effort worth the
