Message304345
| Author |
gvanrossum |
| Recipients |
Mark.Shannon, arigo, belopolsky, benjamin.peterson, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, njs, vstinner, xdegaye, xgdomingo, yselivanov |
| Date |
2017年10月13日.16:31:24 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1507912284.88.0.213398074469.issue30744@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Hm.... I may just be completely off here, but I thought that compilers could be allowed to recognize the use of locals() in a particular function and then disable JIT optimizations for that function. (In fact I thought we already had a rule like this but I can't find any language about it, but maybe I'm mistaken and we only have such an exception for sys._getframe() -- though it's not mentioned in the docs for that either.)
I do like Nathaniel's idea of making locals() a write-through proxy (and let f_locals the same thing). If this keeps the frame alive, well too bad -- there are lots of other things that do this too, e.g. tracebacks.
Or what about a read-only proxy or a plain snapshot? The docs already say that it *shouldn't* be written and *may* not write through -- are we concerned that a lot of people depend on the actual runtime behavior rather than the documented behavior? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2017年10月13日 16:31:24 | gvanrossum | set | recipients:
+ gvanrossum, arigo, ncoghlan, belopolsky, vstinner, benjamin.peterson, njs, xdegaye, Mark.Shannon, yselivanov, xgdomingo |
| 2017年10月13日 16:31:24 | gvanrossum | set | messageid: <1507912284.88.0.213398074469.issue30744@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2017年10月13日 16:31:24 | gvanrossum | link | issue30744 messages |
| 2017年10月13日 16:31:24 | gvanrossum | create |
|