From: Alexandre F. <ale...@gm...> - 2009-10-31 16:05:48
|
On 10/30/09, Joe English <jen...@fl...> wrote: > > Alexandre Ferrieux wrote: > > > > Does the absence of reactions mean that #348 moved from half- to fully > > baked, and that in case a CFV were issued now, it would encounter > > nothing but heartful YESses ? > > > The TIP (r1.6) still specifies: > [...] > which is the main thing I objected to. Sigh. Chicken-and-egg... I had hoped the discussion to take place first, to avoid documenting something half-bolted in the TIP ;-) > Please update the TIP to match the implementation then ask again. Done. > Also: the "flat list" representation proposed in the SF Patch > does not look worthwhile. If I'm reading the timings correctly, > this optimization saves on the order of 3 microseconds in a process > that takes on the order of 100 microseconds overall. The claim of > "three times faster^H^H^H^H^H^H less overhead!" seems overblown. > Optimizing something that takes a small fraction of the overall > runtime, isn't slow to begin with, and doesn't even need to be fast > in the first place (since it only affects error propagation), > just doesn't seem worth it. OK. One clarification though: it's saving 3 usecs out of the 5 we're about to lose. That may not be much, but doesn't sound as ridiculous as you make it sound with 3 vs 100 ... (especially when people start whispering about a "slower" 8.6). Anyway, patch updated to your liking. As noted in the comments, now I need to fix the whole test suite wherever the options dictionary value is checked in extenso. This, by the way, makes me wonder whether it is a good idea to let -errorstack (and -errorinfo, for that matter) land in the options dict. I'd bet it clutters the logs when people just print the dict for debugging... -Alex |