Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Em Thu, 10 Jul 2025 17:30:20 -0600 > Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> escreveu: > >> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > With that, I would just drop this patch, as the performance is >> > almost identical, and using "emit()" instead of "+=" IMO makes >> > the code less clear. >> >> I've dropped the patch - for now - but I really disagree with the latter >> part of that sentence. It is far better, IMO, to encapsulate the >> construction of our output rather than spreading vast numbers of direct >> string concatenations throughout the code. So this one will likely be >> back in a different form :) > > The main concern was related to performance penalty - as based on > the latest test results, Pyhon currently handles very poorly list > concat (30% to 200% slower at the latest test results). Yes, I understood that part > Yet, at least for me with my C-trained brain parsing, I find "=+" a > lot easier to understand than some_function(). > > Btw, IMHO Python is not particularly great with names for concat/accumulate > commands. For list, it is append(), for set it is add(). Yet, "+=" is almost > universal (from standard types, only sets don't accept it, using, > instead, "|=", which kind of makes sense). > > Adding a function naming emit() - at least for me - requires an extra brain > processing time to remember that emit is actually a function that doesn't > produce any emission: it just stores data for a future output - that may > even not happen if one calls the script with "--none". OK, I'll ponder on a different name :) Perhaps the new not_emit() could even be aware of --none and just drop the data on the floor. Thanks, jon
