Neal Becker wrote:
> One possible way to improve the situation is, that if we really believe
> python cannot easily support such optimizations because the code is too
> "dynamic", is to allow manual annotation of functions. For example, gcc
> has allowed such annotations using __attribute__ for qu
One possible way to improve the situation is, that if we really believe
python cannot easily support such optimizations because the code is too
"dynamic", is to allow manual annotation of functions. For example, gcc
has allowed such annotations using __attribute__ for quite a while. This
would al
[Neal Becker]
> >>I don't know to what extent these kind of optimizations are
available to
> >>cpython. For example, are constant calculations removed from loops?
[Brett Cannon]
> > If you mean ``2+3``, then yes.
[Greg Ewing]
> Actually, no. Constant folding *could* be done, but it currently
i
Brett Cannon wrote:
>>I don't know to what extent these kind of optimizations are available to
>>cpython. For example, are constant calculations removed from loops?
>
> If you mean ``2+3``, then yes.
Actually, no. Constant folding *could* be done, but it currently isn't:
>>> def f():
... re
On 9/15/05, Neal Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use cpython. I'm accustomed (from c++/gcc) to a style of coding that is
> highly readable, making the assumption that the compiler will do good
> things to optimize the code despite the style in which it's written. For
> example, I assume con
