[Python-ideas] Python-ideas Digest, Vol 90, Issue 30

[Ethan Furman]

On 05/21/2014 03:51 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
> I'm perfectly happy to remove the word "peephole" from the feature. If we expect the set of optimizations to grow in the
> future, then we can expect that more cases of code analysis will be misled by optimizations.  All the more reason to
> establish a way now that will disable all optimizations.

I think the big part of the problem is that there are more than just peephole optimizations.  For example, what about 
all the fast-path optimizations?  Do we want to be able to turn those off?  How about the heapq optimizations that 
Raymond put in a few months ago?

As Nick suggested, I think it would be better to fix whichever part is broken and allowing dead code to stay in the 
bytecode.

--
~Ethan~