ANN: withrestart 0.2.1

[Ryan Kelly]

On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 07:12 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> I haven't tried it, but it sounds really cool.  I suppose I should expect a 
> lot more overhead compared to try/except, since it's not built-in to python?

It's a pretty thin layer on top of try/except so I'll be surprised if
there is *too* much overhead.  The only overhead is at establishment
and/or invocation time - calling some extra functions, walking a few
stack frames, etc.

I've attached a highly scientific benchmark I threw together this
morning.  Results:

  Establishing a restart/tryexcept but not using it:

    test_tryexcept0:  1.23 usec
    test_restarts0:  34.90 usec

  Establishing a restart/tryexcept, returning a new value:

    test_tryexcept1:  3.56 usec
    test_restarts1:  67.30 usec

  Establishing a restart/tryexcept, raising a new error: 

    test_tryexcept2:  5.86 usec
    test_restarts2:  90.20 usec

  Not having to pass status flags or callback functions through every
layer of your API to properly recover from errors:

    tryexcept:    impossible :-(
    withrestart:  priceless  :-)


  Cheers,

      Ryan


-- 
Ryan Kelly
http://www.rfk.id.au  |  This message is digitally signed. Please visit
ryan at rfk.id.au        |  http://www.rfk.id.au/ramblings/gpg/ for details

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: timetest.py
Type: text/x-python
Size: 1833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20091219/47c03383/attachment-0001.py>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20091219/47c03383/attachment-0001.sig>