STINNER Victor added the comment: I proposed an optimization for "x << 0" (as part of a larger patch to optimize 2 ** x) but the issue was rejected: http://bugs.python.org/issue21420#msg217802
Mark Dickson wrote (msg217863): "There are many, many tiny optimisations we *could* be making in Objects/longobject.c; each of those potential optimisations adds to the cost of maintaining the code, detracts from readability, and potentially even slows down the common cases fractionally. In general, I think we should only be applying this sort of optimization when there's a clear benefit to real-world code. I don't think this one crosses that line." ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue22501> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
