[PATCH V2] smartset: add a "toset" method
pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org
Sat Jun 3 21:28:33 EDT 2017
On 06/04/2017 02:55 AM, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2017 5:02 PM, "Augie Fackler" <raf at durin42.com
> <mailto:raf at durin42.com>> wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2017, at 7:29 PM, Pierre-Yves David
> <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org
> <mailto:pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org>> wrote:
> >>> + def toset(self):
> >>> + return self._set
> >> It freaks me out just a little (maybe too much Rust today?) to
> leak self._set mutably like this. What do you think of making a
> copy? Should we just strongly admonish in the “convert to a set”
> docstring that callers of toset() _must not_ mutate the returned set?
> > Note: For the target code, copying sets is can be multiple percent
> of the total run time.
> Okay, it sounds like we should document that the API contract is
> that clients must not mutate the returned set. Does that sound
> workable to everyone?
That works for me (ideally, python would have an API to turn a set into
a frozen set in place).
Regarding this series, the new function currently do not have any user
so I think we should wait a bit. Updating the whole API of smartset for
something that we are not sure to use yet seems premature.
I think Jun made his point in terms of "what he would like the API to
looks like." and we should get back to that as part of a series actually
using it (so that we can discuss the benefit).
> Sounds good to me.
> But I think the argument about "multiple percent of the total run time"
> is pretty silly when the total run time is about a millisecond (IIUC).
I agree it is not too critical
More information about the Mercurial-devel