[Python-Dev] Accepting PEP 3154 for 3.4?
solipsis at pitrou.net
Tue Nov 19 23:09:40 CET 2013
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:06:22 -0600
Tim Peters <tim.peters at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Ahah, ok, I see where you're going. But how many other implementations
> >>> of unpickling are there?
> >> That's something you should have researched when writing the PEP ;-)
> >> How many implementations of Python aren't CPython? That's probably
> >> the answer. I'm not an expert on that, but there's more than one.
> > But "how many of them use something else than Lib/pickle.py" is the
> > actual question.
> I don't know - and neither do you ;-)
> I do know that I'd like, e.g., a version of pickletools.dis() in
> CPython that _did_ show the framing bits, for debugging. That's a
> bare-bones "unpickler". I don't know how many other "partial
> unpicklers" exist in the wild either. But their lives would also be
> much easier if the framing stuff were explicit. "Mandatory
> optimization" should be an oxymoron ;-)
Well, I don't think it's a big deal to add a FRAME opcode if it doesn't
change the current framing logic. I'd like to defer to Alexandre on this
More information about the Python-Dev