<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Armin Rigo wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20060529213428.GA20141@code0.codespeak.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Raymond,
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:02:25PM -0700, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Please run some better benchmarks and do more extensive assessments on the
performance impact.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
At the moment, I'm trying to, but 2.5 HEAD keeps failing mysteriously on
the tests I try to time, and even going into an infinite loop consuming
all my memory - since the NFS sprint. Am I allowed to be grumpy here,
and repeat that speed should not be used to justify bugs? I'm proposing
a bug fix, I honestly don't care about 0.5% of speed.
</pre>
</blockquote>
If it is really 0.5%, then we're fine. Just remember that PyStone is
an amazingly uninformative and crappy benchmark.<br>
<br>
The "justify bugs" terminology is pejorative and inaccurate. It is
clear that the current dict behavior was a concious design decision and
documented as such. Perhaps the decision sucked and should be changed,
but it is not a bug.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20060529213428.GA20141@code0.codespeak.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> and I consider
myself an everyday Python user,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Something may have been lost in translation. Using it every day is not
the same as being an everyday user ;-) There is no doubt that you
routinely stress the language in ways ways that are not at all
commonplace.<br>
<br>
All I'm asking is that there be a well thought-out assessment of
whether the original design decision was struck the appropriate balance
between practicality <br>
<br>
Raymond<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>