On Tuesday, 22 October 2013 09:55:15 UTC+1, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Philip Herron <herron.philip <at> googlemail.com> writes: > > > > > > Its interesting a few things come up what about: > > > > > > exec and eval. I didn't really have a good answer for this at my talk at > > PYCon IE 2013 but i am going to say no. I am > > > not going to implement these. Partly because eval and exec at least to me > > are mostly from developing > > > interpreters as a debugging exercise so the test doesn't have to invoke > > the program properly and feed in > > > strings to interpret at least thats what i have done in the past with an > > virtual machine i wrote before gccpy. > > > > If you don't implement exec() and eval() then people won't be able to use > > namedtuples, which are a common datatype factory. > > > > As for the rest: well, good luck writing an AOT compiler producing > > interesting results on average *pure* Python code. It's already been tried > > a number of times, and has generally failed. Cython mitigates the issue by > > exposing a superset of Python (including type hints, etc.). > > > > Regards > > > > Antoine. Thanks for that interesting example, i haven't looked into how its implemented but on initially looking at this is am nearly sure i can implement this without using exec or eval. I've found this a lot in implementing my run time. Exec and eval at least to me in the past I've used them as debug hooks into a toy virtual machine i wrote i don't particularly think they are part of a language nor should people really use them.
Thanks -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
