Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #10792 > unrolled thread

Re: Early binding as an option

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Early binding as an option Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-03 09:58 +0100

#10792 — Re: Early binding as an option

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>        Horrors... That looks like some MUF code I've seen (I never had a
> MUF flag on my old characters, so had no privilege to write in MUF --
> MPI was available to all, and even it had some links to MUF operations
> using similar magic numbers).
>

Hehe. I didn't mean that it should be thus in the source code, but
that some simple notation would tell the interpreter that it can make
that translation in memory - at the tokenization stage, or perhaps
when the function is invoked. The idea is that the interpreter can
skip one step - the step of taking the name "len", looking it up, and
finding the object <built-in function len> that it represents. It can
do that part of the work once, and patch in the function's address
somewhere as a special token - right into the tokenized source code.

Parenthesis: Reading the Wikipedia article on MUF shows that it has a
number of similarities to what I do today in coding my MUD - I have an
extremely rudimentary editor interface (smart editing is done on the
client), submit my code to the server, compile it, and invoke it - and
it's governed by permissions bits. However, I use a rather better
language than MUF :)

ChrisA

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web