[PEAK] PEAK-Rules indexing performance

Alberto Valverde alberto at toscat.net
Sat Jan 10 15:25:40 EST 2009

Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 09:12 PM 1/9/2009 +0100, Alberto Valverde wrote:
>> After some peeking at peak.rules internals, motivated by the meta 
>> function recipe you posted some months ago to optimize the "isclass" 
>> test, I thought about using them to simplify some rules by "wrapping" 
>> several related checks under a function without incurring in 
>> performance penalties due to non-statically analyzable predicates.
> You can't really do that; meta-functions have to expand back into 
> statically-analyzable predicates, and so will these "predicate 
> functions".  Essentially, both meta-functions are like macros, and 
> predicate functions will be like macros that take effect at runtime 
> instead of compile time.  ;-)

Yeah, I understand that the need to expand to statically analyzable 
predicates, I must have expressed myself wrong. What I meant is to wrap 
several statically analyzable checks like: "(isclass(obj) and 
issubclass(obj, Foo)) or isinstance(obj, Foo)" into something nicer 
like: "issubclass_or_instance(obj, Foo)". Mainly to clean up the hairy 
code in here [1]. Anyway, I think this could probably be done with a 
meta function (right?) but first I need to study the source better...


[1] http://python-rum.org/browser/rum/basefactory.py#L131

More information about the PEAK mailing list