[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/nondist/peps pep-0329.txt, 1.2, 1.3

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Tue Apr 20 12:16:01 EDT 2004

At 08:31 AM 4/20/04 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Adopt Jack Diederich's suggested module name.
>I think pragma.py is a poor name for this, because (a) pragma is a
>candidate keyword (it has keyword status in most languages that have
>it) and (b) the word pragma implies compiler directives of any kind,
>not just the specific function proposed in this PEP.
>Also, a heads up: unless this PEP gets a lot more support from folks
>whose first name isn't Raymond, I'm going to reject it.

Would it be salvageable if it were changed to:

* Get rid of bytecode hacking, in favor of a change to the compiler

* Optimize builtins *only*, and only those that are never assigned to by 
the module

* use a __future__ statement to enable the behavior initially, before 
making it the default in a future release

* have module.__setattr__ warn when shadowing a previously unshadowed 
builtin (unless the module uses the __future__ statement, in which case 
it's an error)

Would this be acceptable?  It seems to me that this approach would allow 
Jython and IronPython the option in future of replacing lookups of builtins 
with static field accesses and/or method calls, which would give them quite 
a potential performance boost.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list