[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/nondist/peps
pep-0329.txt, 1.2, 1.3
jeremy at alum.mit.edu
Tue Apr 20 16:50:35 EDT 2004
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 12:16, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> 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.
This is basically what IronPython does already. A sufficiently clever
implementation can make the current semantics go fast enough. Thus,
we'd only need changes to the compiler, not even changes to the
language. This is the most attractive option to me (see PEP 267).
I don't like the PEP 329 approach because it adds extra complexity to
each module to work around a limitation of the current implementation
that will almost surely disappear one day.
More information about the Python-Dev