Message88585
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
ajaksu2, amaury.forgeotdarc, collinwinter, ezio.melotti, jafo, jimjjewett, lemburg, orivej, pitrou, vstinner |
| Date |
2009年05月30日.22:47:57 |
| SpamBayes Score |
8.1266146e-05 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1243723809.16867.4.camel@localhost> |
| In-reply-to |
<1243723272.11.0.154600236805.issue1943@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> There were a number of patches to support sharing of data between
> unicode objects. (By Larry Hastings?) They were rejected because (a)
> they were complicated, and (b) it was possible to provoke pathological
> memory retention.
Yes, it's the "lazy strings" patches by Larry Hastings (it was for str,
not unicode, though). Issues are #1590352 and #1569040 (and perhaps
others).
In any case, as I said, it is easy to switch back to the old
representation, so I don't think it is an argument to block this patch. |
|