[Python-Dev] Possible optimization for LOAD_FAST ?
alex.gaynor at gmail.com
Tue Jan 4 17:21:57 CET 2011
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk>
> >> I think someone else pointed this out, but replacing builtins externally
> >> a module is actually common for testing. In particular replacing the
> >> function, but also other builtins, is often done temporarily to replace
> >> with a mock. It seems like this optimisation would break those tests.
> > Hm, I already suggested to make an exception for open, (and one should
> > be added for __import__) but if this is done for other builtins that
> > is indeed a problem. Can you point to example code doing this?
> I've seen it done to write tests for simple CLI behaviour by mocking
> input() and print() (replacing sys.stdin and sys.stdout instead is far
> more common, but replacing the functions works too). If compile()
> accepted a blacklist of builtins that it wasn't allowed to optimise,
> then that should deal with the core of the problem as far as testing
> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Ugh, I can't be the only one who finds these special cases to be a little
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
"The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
"Code can always be simpler than you think, but never as simple as you want"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev