Author gregory.p.smith
Recipients Arfrever, Julien.Palard, Ramchandra Apte, berker.peksag, brian.curtin, eric.araujo, eric.snow, ezio.melotti, gregory.p.smith, gruszczy, martin.panter, meatballhat, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka
Date 2015-04-20.06:05:46
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAGE7PNLQsSRNzHV7qWGOrKJofgimtc1Bzv56XmtTG=v2UN2JTQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1429507889.85.0.149098065423.issue8706@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
I wouldn't make an efficiency argument against it without trying it and
showing reproducible degradation in the hg.python.org/benchmarks suite.

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015, 10:31 PM Serhiy Storchaka <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:

>
> Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
>
> Supporting keyword arguments has performance loss. For fast builtins it
> make be significant. We should defer adding keyword arguments support until
> more efficient parsing will implemented. Note that it is easier to
> implement efficient argument parsing for functions with positional-only
> arguments (see for example issue23867).
>
> ----------
> nosy: +serhiy.storchaka
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8706>
> _______________________________________
>
History
Date User Action Args
2015-04-20 06:05:46gregory.p.smithsetrecipients: + gregory.p.smith, rhettinger, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, Arfrever, brian.curtin, gruszczy, meatballhat, eric.snow, Ramchandra Apte, berker.peksag, martin.panter, serhiy.storchaka, Julien.Palard
2015-04-20 06:05:46gregory.p.smithlinkissue8706 messages
2015-04-20 06:05:46gregory.p.smithcreate