Optimising literals away

[MRAB]

On 31/08/2010 23:11, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 31Aug2010 22:53, MRAB<python at mrabarnett.plus.com>  wrote:
> [...]
> |>>>def m(arg):
> |>>>if arg&  set([1,2,3]):
> |>
> |>set() is a function call, not a literal. When m is called, who knows
> |>what 'set' will be bound to? In Py3, at least, you could write {1,2,3},
> |>which is much faster as it avoids creating and deleting a list. On my
> |>machine, .35 versus .88 usec. Even then, it must be calculated each time
> |>because sets are mutable and could be returned to the calling code.
> |>
> | There's still the possibility of some optimisation. If the resulting
> | set is never stored anywhere (bound to a name, for example) then it
> | could be created once. When the expression is evaluated there could be
> | a check so see whether 'set' is bound to the built-in class, and, if it
> | is, then just use the pre-created set.
>
> Wouldn't you need to repeat that check every time, otherwise "set" may
> no longer be the builtin?

Isn't that what I said?

My point is that if you have a set of constants which is created and
then discarded you can cache it and reuse it next time. You check every
time whether 'set' is bound to the set class.