Re: Python is not bad ;-)

References	(10 earlier) <mailman.9.1430565706.12865.python-list@python.org> <mi2cjc$uq2$1@dont-email.me> <87383fkxy0.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <CALwzidn_4EyKA-AekPqwk2+1+0Yd3ONsTdKx73bfpzZkyXj++w@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmqmVuFmZbhtiiOj2haVjFuHOYrBVcNLSe6ohUUS1btNBA@mail.gmail.com>
From	Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>
Date	2015-05-02 11:00 -0600
Subject	Re: Python is not bad ;-)
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.19.1430586047.12865.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>>> Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>:
>>>
>>>> That's why I still think it is a microoptimization, which helps only
>>>> in some specific cases.
>>>
>>> It isn't done for performance. It's done to avoid a stack overflow
>>> exception.
>>
>> If your tree is balanced, then the number of items you would need to
>> have to get a stack overflow exception would be approximately 2 **
>> 1000, which you can't possibly hope to fit into memory.
>>
>> If your tree is unbalanced and you're getting a stack overflow
>> exception, then maybe you should think about balancing it.
>
> That's assuming it's a search tree, where you *can* just "think about
> balancing it". What if it's a parse tree? Let's say you're walking the
> AST of a Python module, looking for all functions that contain 'yield'
> or 'yield from' (ie generator functions). To do that, you need to walk
> the entire depth of the tree, no matter how far that goes. I'm not
> sure how complex a piece of code would have to be to hit 1000, but it
> wouldn't be hard to have each level of tree cost you two or three
> stack entries, so that could come down to just a few hundred.

Or you just iterate over the ast.walk generator, which uses a deque
rather than recursion.

Thread

Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 09:07 +0200
  Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-04-30 19:10 +1000
    Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-04-30 13:16 +0300
      Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 20:52 +1000
      Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 13:30 +0200
        Re: Python is not bad ;-) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-01 17:03 +1000
          Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-01 09:47 +0200
          Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-01 19:56 +0200
          Re: Python is not bad ;-) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-05-02 19:44 +1200
          Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 10:26 +0200
            Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 12:10 +0300
              Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 19:25 +1000
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 12:58 +0300
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-05-02 06:22 -0400
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 20:42 +1000
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-02 13:07 +0200
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 21:21 +1000
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-02 13:32 +0200
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 14:42 +0300
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:45 -0600
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-03 01:55 +1000
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 16:50 +0300
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 18:53 +0300
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 11:00 -0600
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 11:17 -0600
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-02 18:22 +0100
              Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 12:29 +0200
            Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 11:33 +0200
              Re: Python is not bad ;-) Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-05-02 06:35 -0400
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 13:12 +0200
              Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:31 -0600
      Re: Python is not bad ;-) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-01 15:56 +1000
    Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 13:10 +0200
  Re: Python is not bad ;-) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 08:03 -0600
    Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 18:11 +0200
      Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-04-30 19:59 +0200
        Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 22:05 +0200

csiph-web