Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > I'm ok with the conditional import for ET, although I don't see a > reason to exclude it. Why not be able to compare the performance of > both implementations as well? There's a slowpickle benchmark, for > example.
It made sense in 2.7 where both implementations were visibly selectable (and the pure Python ones were arguably the "default" choice since their names were less obtuse). But in 3.3 the C accelerator is automatically enabled when importing xml.etree. So I don't think making a difference makes much sense anymore. > So, what about only testing cET by default and adding an explicit > option "--etree-module=package.module" to change the imported module, > e.g. "--etree-module=lxml.etree" to benchmark lxml or > "--etree-module=cElementTree" to benchmark a separately installed 3rd > party cET package? Well, we could still add a "lxml" benchmark but disable it by default (I mean not make it part of the main sub-suites). That way people can run it explicitly if they want. (also, since it's a "lxml" benchmark, it may test other things than simply the etree API, if you like) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue17573> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
