<br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/8/30 Antoine Pitrou <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:solipsis@pitrou.net">solipsis@pitrou.net</a>></span><br><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Changing the bytecode width wouldn't make the interpreter more complex.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It depends on the kind of changes. :)</div><div><br></div><div>WPython introduced a very different "intermediate code" representation that required a big change on the peepholer optimizer on 1.0 alpha version.</div>
<div>On 1.1 final I decided to completely move that code on ast.c (mostly for constant-folding) and compiler.c (for the usual peepholer usage: seeking for some "patterns" to substitute with better ones) because I found it simpler and more convenient.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In the end, taking out some new optimizations that I've implemented "on the road", the interpreter code is a bit more complex.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Some years ago we were waiting for Unladen Swallow to improve itself<br>
and be ported to Python 3. Now it seems we are waiting for PyPy to be<br>
ported to Python 3. I'm not sure how "let's just wait" is a good<br>
trade-off if someone proposes interesting patches (which, of course,<br>
remains to be seen).<br>
<div class="im"><br></div>
Regards<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Antoine.<br>
</font><div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div>It isn't, because motivation to do something new with CPython vanishes, at least on some areas (virtual machine / ceval.c), even having some ideas to experiment with. That's why in my last talk on EuroPython I decided to move on other areas (Python objects).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div>Cesare</div></div>