On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:36:09 -0700, Alex Martelli wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >> detail you shouldn't care about. Functions that cache the result of long >> time-consuming complications are _good_. > > Not necessarily --
Absolutely -- I didn't mean to imply that functions should _always_ cache their "complications" (I meant to write calculations, but obviously my fingers weren't paying attention to my brain). > <http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/12/20/327369.aspx> > asserts the exactly opposite principle, "Don't save anything you can > recalculate"... of course, the best approach is generally a compromise, > but it's good to be aware of the potentially high costs of caching:-). Yes -- I wouldn't cache anything that was cheap enough to calculate. What cheap enough (in time or memory or other resources) means depends on the circumstances. Nor would I cache things that were likely to change often. -- Steven D'Aprano -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
