Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder.news-service.com!xlned.com!feeder7.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.001 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'python.': 0.04; '*not*': 0.05; 'suppose': 0.05; 'compiler': 0.07; 'interpreter': 0.07; 'python': 0.08; 'block.': 0.09; 'difference,': 0.09; 'executes': 0.09; 'function:': 0.09; 'interpreter,': 0.09; 'wrote:': 0.15; '*only*': 0.16; 'block,': 0.16; 'closures,': 0.16; 'compiler,': 0.16; 'elsewhere,': 0.16; 'somehow.': 0.16; '\xa0in': 0.16; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.16; 'pm,': 0.16; 'def': 0.16; "wouldn't": 0.17; 'issue.': 0.19; 'language': 0.20; 'cc:2**0': 0.21; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.22; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.22; 'trying': 0.23; 'objects,': 0.23; 'pieces': 0.23; 'compiled': 0.23; 'code': 0.24; 'saying': 0.26; 'function': 0.26; "i'm": 0.27; 'url:mailman': 0.27; 'guess': 0.28; 'objects': 0.28; 'sat,': 0.28; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.28; 'interpret': 0.29; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.30; 'thanks': 0.31; 'subject:?': 0.31; 'url:listinfo': 0.32; 'source': 0.32; 'it.': 0.33; 'instead': 0.34; 'it?': 0.34; 'there': 0.34; 'however,': 0.34; '(as': 0.34; 'function.': 0.35; 'subject:What': 0.35; 'then.': 0.35; 'pretty': 0.35; "isn't": 0.35; 'idea': 0.36; 'optimization': 0.36; 'url:python': 0.37; 'opposed': 0.37; 'but': 0.37; 'could': 0.37; 'using': 0.37; 'received:google.com': 0.38; 'received:209.85': 0.38; 'url:org': 0.38; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'eric': 0.38; 'execution': 0.38; 'question,': 0.38; 'steven': 0.38; 'think': 0.38; 'put': 0.38; 'case': 0.39; 'received:209': 0.40; 'called': 0.40; 'did': 0.40; 'your': 0.60; 'taking': 0.65; 'received:209.85.215.174': 0.67; 'received:mail- ey0-f174.google.com': 0.67; 'special': 0.67; 'quality': 0.74; 'compiles': 0.84; 'difference.': 0.84; 'snow': 0.91 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bMwx1Snv7/Gl62oONMU/X7hKN/kQUYH3CnL2zmmLP2o=; b=at2nd2wir6KkL8zzg4npqOA0mfNHnKM9ZFOxXUJoU6I+lzxt5DVS3CjjYjjSkgn+F/ Wzj9RP1eebo8uK2Pf5wDJ98JjPZeHOq1K3TMKyhh+gBPOAo37f9ASxxaSfcA3qD4qT23 6Kuzgz0wFG1dgsC+FL/DqMq1c5Z11lkJWmdRc= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4e1901bb$0$29994$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> References: <4e1901bb$0$29994$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 20:33:10 -0600 Subject: Re: What makes functions special? From: Eric Snow To: "Steven D'Aprano" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: python-list@python.org X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 68 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1310265192 news.xs4all.nl 21831 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:47994 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:9135 On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Eric Snow wrote: > >> Mostly I am just >> trying to put together more pieces of the Python puzzle. =A0In this case >> I was trying to find out if the optimized execution of code objects >> for functions is a part of the language or just an implementation >> detail. > > You keep using that phrase, "optimized execution of code objects for > functions", but I have no idea what that means. > > The best I can think of is that you are thinking along these lines... > > "Suppose we have the source code to a function: > > def spam(n): > =A0 =A0return "SPAM"*n > > To execute this, Python currently compiles the function into a code block= , > and then when you call spam(n) elsewhere, Python executes the already > compiled code block. > Yeah, that's pretty much it. Is that all there is to it? I was saying optimized, but I guess there isn't much special optimization going on then. Thanks for taking the time. -eric > Suppose instead an implementation of Python did not pre-compile the > function. Each time you called spam(n), the implementation would have to > locate the source code and interpret it on the spot. Would that be > allowed?" > > If that's your question, then I would call that a Python interpreter usin= g > c.1960 technology (as opposed to a byte-code compiler, which all the main > implementations currently are). > > If that were the *only* difference, then I see no reason why it wouldn't = be > allowed as an implementation of Python. A horribly slow implementation, b= ut > still an implementation. > > However, I doubt that would be the only difference. Given such a > simple-minded Python interpreter, it would be hard to provide expected > Python language features such as compiled code objects, closures, etc. Yo= u > would have to fake them somehow. Provided you could fake them sufficientl= y > well, then the lack of a byte-code compiler is just a quality of > implementation issue. > > If that's *not* your question, them I'm stumped. > > > > > -- > Steven > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >