Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint
Pascal Costanza
costanza at web.de
Tue Oct 28 18:37:14 EST 2003
Matthias Blume wrote:
>>we both don't have the necessary empirical data to back our claims)
>
>
> Speak for yourself.
You too.
This:
> I have worked on projects where people worried about *every cycle*.
^^^^^^^^
> (Most of the time I agree with you, though. Still, using infinite
> precision by default is, IMO, a mistake. Having it around and at your
^^^^^^
> fingertips, though, is nice. That's why I added the long-missing
> compiler support for IntInf to SML/NJ recently.)
is by any scientifical standard not enough evidence to back this:
> The problem
> is that for many algorithms people want to be sure that the compiler
> represents their values in machine words. Infinite precision is
> needed sometimes, but in the majority of cases it is overkill. If you
> need infinite precision, specify the type (IntInf.int in SML's case).
> A clever compiler might optimize that like a Lisp compiler does. In
> most other cases, why take any chances?
Pascal
More information about the Python-list
mailing list