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 Aaron Hall
Recipients Aaron Hall, serhiy.storchaka
Date 2017-10-11.14:31:07
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1507732267.66.0.213398074469.issue31753@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
So... moving the closure (which may be called recursively) to the global scope actually does improve performance (for small cases, about 10% - larger cases amortize the cost of the closure being built, but in a 100 item dictionary, still about 4% faster to extricate the closure). So I'm reopening. Also suggesting we consider doing this with other functions if they are unnecessarily closures in the module.

`fix_missing_locations` appears to be another such function with an unnecessary closure.

the closure in `dump` cannot be removed without some rewriting of the signature, as it uses variables it closes over. Not sure this would be worth it.
History
Date User Action Args
2017-10-11 14:31:07Aaron Hallsetrecipients: + Aaron Hall, serhiy.storchaka
2017-10-11 14:31:07Aaron Hallsetmessageid: <1507732267.66.0.213398074469.issue31753@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-10-11 14:31:07Aaron Halllinkissue31753 messages
2017-10-11 14:31:07Aaron Hallcreate