Steve Holden wrote:
Roald de Vries wrote:
On Dec 30, 2009, at 2:28 AM, Dave Angel wrote:
Roald de Vries wrote:
<snip>
mehow define a different set of functions???
I'm using a database, and want to use python interactively to manipulate
it. On the other hand, I also want to be able to use it
non-interactively. In that case, it would be a waste of CPU to load the
function/class definitions meant for interactive use.
This is an extreme case of premature optimization. Write the code and
run it. Do you have any idea how much extra time and memory loading the
additional code will require? If not, it's a waste of your time to even
think about omitting the stuff required for interactive use.
Once you get a handle on the structures and functions required for
interactive vs. non-interactive use you can consider refactoring the
code so that the non-interactive programs don't need to import the stuff
that's exclusively for interactive use. But frankly I wouldn't waste
your time.
regards
Steve
Ron:
You'd be surprised how little additional space and time a few functions
take up.
But in any case, if (after measurement) you decide you really want them
to be optional, then just have a different module that the interactive
users import than the one that you run in production. Have both modules
import the bulk of the code, and keep the differences in one place.
It's also possible to build stubs for the missing functions, and import
them and overwrite the stubs, upon first reference. I've done that sort
of thing in other language environments, when it made a definite
measurable difference (like say 50%)
DaveA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
