Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> I think this is called a "polymorphic inline cache", although it doesn't
> seem very polymorphic if you're only caching one type. :)
if it's not polymorphic, it's an ordinary inline cache (aka "call-site cache").
(see various Self papers for more on polymorphic caches)
At 06:55 PM 9/14/2005 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>Neal Norwitz wrote:
> > This code doesn't really work in general. It assumes that any append
> > function call is a list method, which is obviously invalid. But if a
> > variable is known to be a list (ie, local and assigned as list
> > (BUILD_
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Alternatively, couldn't LIST_APPEND check that this really is a list,
> and, if it isn't, fall back to PyObject_CallMethod?
that's the obvious solution, of course. cf. existing shortcuts:
$ grep -n INLINE Python-2.4.1/Python/ceval.c
1103: /* IN
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Neal Norwitz wrote:
>> This code doesn't really work in general. It assumes that any append
>> function call is a list method, which is obviously invalid. But if a
>> variable is known to be a list (ie, local and assigned as list
>> (BUILD_LIST) or a list comprehension),
Neal Norwitz wrote:
> This code doesn't really work in general. It assumes that any append
> function call is a list method, which is obviously invalid. But if a
> variable is known to be a list (ie, local and assigned as list
> (BUILD_LIST) or a list comprehension), could we do something like th
Tim made me do it!
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/9075a3bc59c334c9
For whatever reason, I was just curious how his code could be sped up.
I kept seeing this append method being called and I thought, "there's
an opcode for that." What happens if you replace var.append() wi
