Message 108996 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	rhettinger
Recipients	alexandre.vassalotti, belopolsky, fdrake, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger
Date	2010-06-30.16:48:14
SpamBayes Score	0.009415833
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<1277916496.49.0.296771662453.issue9120@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
> A further version of the pickle protocol could > have a dedicated opcode for sets instead... -1 We don't have to introduce a new (and backwards incompatible) opcode for every possible container type. The space savings is miniscule (because you still need to list out the items). All that is saved is the enclosing list or tuple setup (five bytes in the case of sets). People concerned about pickle size would be much better off investing time into a more generic solution (such as adding a code to automatically run zip/gzip/bzip/xz etc).

> A further version of the pickle protocol could 
> have a dedicated opcode for sets instead...

-1 We don't have to introduce a new (and backwards incompatible) opcode for every possible container type.  The space savings is miniscule (because you still need to list out the items).  All that is saved is the enclosing list or tuple setup (five bytes in the case of sets). 

People concerned about pickle size would be much better off investing time into a more generic solution (such as adding a code to automatically run zip/gzip/bzip/xz etc).

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2010-06-30 16:48:16	rhettinger	set	recipients: + rhettinger, fdrake, mark.dickinson, belopolsky, pitrou, alexandre.vassalotti
2010-06-30 16:48:16	rhettinger	set	messageid: <1277916496.49.0.296771662453.issue9120@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-06-30 16:48:14	rhettinger	link	issue9120 messages
2010-06-30 16:48:14	rhettinger	create