Message284909
| Author |
xiang.zhang |
| Recipients |
Yury.Selivanov, belopolsky, methane, ncoghlan, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner, xiang.zhang, yselivanov |
| Date |
2017年01月07日.11:58:57 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1483790338.04.0.541796902294.issue29178@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I'm -1 if the intention is about easiness and efficiency.
I think a new API is usually added due to functional defect not performance defect. We get a way here though the performance seems not ideal, according to INADA's mail. I think we should first check if memoryview gets an optimization chance to fit more in such a case. Creating a memoryview is not cheap enough in such a case.
About easiness to use, when a user considering such low level details, it's reasonable to know memoryview and it needs to be released.
But if this API is added to simplify bytes(), I think it makes sense but it's not only about adding a frombuffer(). |
|