Message366456
| Author |
vstinner |
| Recipients |
carljm, corona10, dino.viehland, eelizondo, gregory.p.smith, nascheme, pablogsal, pitrou, shihai1991, steve.dower, tim.peters, vstinner |
| Date |
2020年04月14日.22:55:03 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1586904903.69.0.750445151024.issue40255@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
This feature seems to be driven by Instagram use case. Are there other users who would benefit of that? Is it a common use case to load big data and then fork to use preloaded data?
PR 19474 has a maintenance cost:
* new configuration option
* new macro
* need a buildbot to check that the option is not broken
* document the change
* etc.
There is even now a question about using a different ABI flag.
It's not the common case to build a custom Python manually for a specific use case. Most users use a binary shipped by their operating system.
I'm not sure that it's worth it for Python to maintain such special build.
Maybe bpo-39511 would be a better motivation to support immortable objects.
But I'm also concerned by the huge impact on performance :-( |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2020年04月14日 22:55:03 | vstinner | set | recipients:
+ vstinner, tim.peters, nascheme, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, carljm, dino.viehland, steve.dower, corona10, pablogsal, eelizondo, shihai1991 |
| 2020年04月14日 22:55:03 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1586904903.69.0.750445151024.issue40255@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2020年04月14日 22:55:03 | vstinner | link | issue40255 messages |
| 2020年04月14日 22:55:03 | vstinner | create |
|