Gabriele N Tornetta <phoenix1...@gmail.com> added the comment:
Thanks for the feedback. I certainly appreciate all the concerns around this proposed change. @Mark.Shannon 1. This is the desired behaviour as profiling data should be attached to the actual code objects that correlate with the actual source content. Besides, in this respect, given the immutability of code objects, qualname behaves like name. 2. At the Python level it is already possible to get the __qualname__ of a function (but not of a code object). As this is all I needed, I kept my initial implementation to the bare minimum. 3. I agree with this analysis. Whilst this increases the memory footprint, it might have the benefit of making the derivation of __qualname__ faster as this would now be cached on code objects. However, I also appreciate @pablogsal's point of view of evaluating the actual benefits. The extra point in favour of this change that I can make is that it would resolve name clashes in profiling data from tools that have minimal impact on the runtime. Whether this is enough to justify the extra memory cost is certainly up for debate. From my side, I don't have the numbers to make this case more concrete. As a next step, I'll look into exposing the new field to Python to see what it actually ends up looking like. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue44530> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
