On 05/09/2015 11:33 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
This is the point where some people try to suggest some sort of complicated,
fragile, DWIM heuristic where the compiler tries to guess whether the user
actually wants the default to use early or late binding, based on what the
expression looks like. "0 is an immutable int, use early binding; [] is a
mutable list, use late binding." sort of thing. Such a thing might work
well for the obvious cases, but it would be a bugger to debug and
work-around for the non-obvious cases when it guesses wrong -- and it will.
What you could have is "late-binding semantics, optional early binding
as an optimization but only in cases where the result is
indistinguishable". That would allow common cases (int/bool/str/None
literals) to be optimized, since there's absolutely no way for them to
evaluate differently.
Except for literals, True, False and None, I can't see any way to
optimize such a thing. Just because the name on the right side
references an immutable object at compile time, it doesn't follow that
it'll still be the same object later.
Unless late binding means something very different than I understood.
--
DaveA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
