Python and the need for speed
bc at freeuk.com
Sat Apr 15 10:37:41 EDT 2017
On 15/04/2017 14:27, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> bartc <bc at freeuk.com>:
>> while 1:
> Why not say it like it is:
> while True:
>> but it's more psychological; I don't want to use an idiom to denote an
>> endless loop, I want to be able to express it directly!
> for (;;)
> I would call an idiom.
I don't like that either!
> while True:
> is about as straightforward as it gets.
In the syntax I normally use (based on Algol 68), the endless loop is:
(well, actually I use do body od, but that may have raised some eyebrows).
'do', in the original Algol 68 syntax, was part of its 'for' statement,
where you could leave out the parts you don't need. The full syntax is
for var := a to b by c while d do body od
If you leave out the first part you get a while loop. Leave out all
except 'to b do', you get a repeat-n-times loop. And so on.
Elegant. (I don't do it that way, I have discrete loop types, plus my
own variations. Devising syntax is so easy, the hard bit is knowing when
>> Python's byte-code does at least optimise
> I don't understand why there's so much talk about CPython's bytecode on
> this list. That should only be of interest to active CPython developers.
What proportion of Python implementations depend on executing byte-code?
More information about the Python-list