On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 09:37:05PM +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On 2015年3月06日 18:11:19 +0000 > Brett Cannon <[email protected]> wrote: > > And the dropping of docstrings does have an impact on > > memory usage when you use Python at scale. > > What kind of "scale" are you talking about? Do you have any numbers > about such impact? > > > You're also assuming that we will never develop an AST optimizer > > No, the assumption is that we don't have such an optimizer *right now*. > Having command-line options because they might be useful some day is > silly.
Quoting the PEP: This issue is only compounded when people optimize Python code beyond what the interpreter natively supports, e.g., using the astoptimizer project [2]_. Brett, I'm a very strong +1 on the PEP. It's well-written and gives a good explanation for why such a thing is needed. The current behaviour of re-using the same .pyo file for two distinct sets of bytecode is out-and-out buggy: [steve@ando ~]$ python3.3 -O -c "import dis; print(dis.__doc__[:32])" Disassembler of Python byte code [steve@ando ~]$ python3.3 -OO -c "import dis; print(dis.__doc__[:32])" Disassembler of Python byte code The second should fail, since doc strings should be removed under -OO optimization, but because the .pyo file already exists it doesn't. Even if CPython drops -O and -OO altogether, this PEP should still be accepted to allow third party optimizers like astoptimizer to interact without getting in each other's way. (And for the record, I'm an equally strong -1 on dropping -O and -OO.) Thank you. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com