Matt Giuca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > I'm OK with replace for unquote() ... > For quote() I think strict is better
There's just an odd inconsistency there, but it's only a tiny "gotcha"; and I agree with all your other arguments. I'll change unquote back to errors='replace'. > This means we have a useful analogy: > quote(s, e) == quote(s.encode(e)). That's exactly true, yes. > Now that you've spent so much time with this patch, can't you think > of a faster way of doing this? Well firstly, you could replace Quoter (the class) with a "quoter" function, which is nested inside quote. Would calling a nested function be faster than a method call? > I wonder if mapping a defaultdict wouldn't work. That is a good idea. Then, the "function" (as I describe above) would be just the inside of what currently is the except block, and that would be the default_factory of the defaultdict. I think that should speed things up. I'm very hazy about what is faster in the bytecode world of Python, and wary of making a change and proclaiming "this is faster!" without doing proper speed tests (which is why I think this optimisation could be delayed until at least after the core interface changes are made). But I'll have a go at that change tomorrow. (I won't be able to work on this for up to 24 hours). _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3300> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
