Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51f0cd7c$0$29971$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
References: <mailman.4618.1373613834.3114.python-list@python.org> <571a6dfe-fd66-42cf-92fc-8b97cbe6e9e4@googlegroups.com> <51DFDE65.5040001@Gmail.com> <CAN1F8qUFP3uX57HhiiUPaYqO3h_HiT8Q_YD=vCYky3EAWsdE7Q@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.4666.1373670835.3114.python-list@python.org> <4f1067f6-bc99-42ad-9166-37fb228b90e8@googlegroups.com> <CAPTjJmoRUUuQgpjukkctnGe4ydHGYr2CEgD9uDtmBRHSejpW0g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+vVgJVxAHEk_Z4uzZFNYtmEFXmyyoo0Jg_rBeqHSDBuF0E1Ug@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.5038.1374676472.3114.python-list@python.org> <51f0cd7c$0$29971$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:39:43 +1000
Subject: Re: RE Module Performance
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
To: python-list@python.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.5083.1374737987.3114.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:51202

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:34:24 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> But mainly, I'm just wondering how many people here have any basis from
>> which to argue the point he's trying to make. I doubt most of us have
>> (a) implemented an editor widget, or (b) tested multiple different
>> internal representations to learn the true pros and cons of each. And
>> even if any of us had, that still wouldn't have any bearing on PEP 393,
>> which is about applications, not editor widgets. As stated above, Python
>> strings before AND after PEP 393 are poor choices for an editor, ergo
>> arguing from that standpoint is pretty useless.
>
> That's a misleading way to put it. Using immutable strings as editor
> buffers might be a bad way to implement all but the most trivial, low-
> performance (i.e. slow) editor, but the basic concept of PEP 393, picking
> an internal representation of the text based on its contents, is not.
> That's just normal. The only difference with PEP 393 is that the choice
> is made on the fly, at runtime, instead of decided in advance by the
> programmer.

Maybe I worded it poorly, but my point was the same as you're saying
here: that a Python string is a poor buffer for editing, regardless of
PEP 393. It's not that PEP 393 makes Python strings worse for writing
a text editor, it's that immutability does that.

ChrisA