Virgil Dupras <hs...@hardcoded.net> added the comment:
About duplicated code and performance:
When I look at the duplicated code, I don't see anything that remotely
looks like a performance tweak. Just to make sure, I made a bench:
#!/usr/bin/env python
import sys
sys.path.insert(0, 'Lib')
import timeit
import weakref
class Foo(object): pass
def setup():
L = [Foo() for i in range(1000)]
global d
d = weakref.WeakValueDictionary(enumerate(L))
del L[:500] # have some dead weakrefs
def do():
d.values()
print timeit.timeit(do, setup, number=100000)
Results without the patch:
./python.exe weakref_bench.py
0.804216861725
Results with the patch:
$ ./python.exe weakref_bench.py
0.813000202179
I think the small difference in performance is more attributable to the
extra processing the weakref dict does than the deduplication of the
code itself.
About the test_weak_*_dict_flushed_dead_items_when_iters_go_out:
If a weakref dict keeps its weak reference alive, it's not an
implementation detail, it's a bug. The whole point of using such dicts
is to not keep keys or values alive when they go out.
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue839159>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
