Anthony Long <antl...@gmail.com> added the comment: I'll have a doc patch shortly.
Also, I am working on defining a solid range. Memory is not an issue like it was back in 1991 when this range was originally implemented, so we can go higher and get a bigger performance boost. This will be very important (to some, admittedly) in Python 3, where there is no distinction between PyInts and PyLongs (more processing req'd), which could benefit from further optimization of the range. Going to be doing benchmarking, -256 to 256 seems like a good place to start. If anyone has app's i should benchmark with in mind, feel free to let me know. ---------- resolution: -> accepted title: Implementation question for (-5) - 256 caching, and doc update for c-api/int.html -> Remove non-guaranteed implementation details from docs. _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11846> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
