Message88745
| Author |
lemburg |
| Recipients |
ajaksu2, amaury.forgeotdarc, collinwinter, ezio.melotti, jafo, jimjjewett, lemburg, orivej, pitrou, vstinner |
| Date |
2009年06月02日.13:53:34 |
| SpamBayes Score |
2.6967595e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<4A252EDC.8020209@egenix.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1243723809.16867.4.camel@localhost> |
| Content |
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou@free.fr> added the comment:
>
>> 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.
That's not the case.
The patch breaks C API + binary compatibility for an essential Python
type - that's not something you can easily undo. |
|