Repository navigation
Use a cythonized WeakSet rather than an interpreted one - #178
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What do these changes do?
These changes add in a new
WeakSetobject Part of my ongoing conquest of getting rid of costly interpreter related code (deque objects are still out of my reach). Hopefully uvloop can get caught up with my additional features. I'm mostly am focused on getting rid of winloop's main bottlenecks first before looking at uvloop again.The Compiled leftovers overtime should encourage CPython to do something about it since I'm about to rip off deque at some point unless someone saves the day and write me a C-API capsule for using deque objects from
3.10-3.16so that more unwanted interpreter calls can be removed.Are there changes in behavior for the user?
These are unexposed if they are exposed throw me an issue immediately, I did write that this object does have a copying bug and this is because I didn't care enough to make that a priority. It's a sacrifice for the performance of cancelling async generators.
Is it a substantial burden for the maintainers to support this?
Not Really. I mean If you wanted to look at the tests I was borrowing from you can but I really see no reason to test it directly.
Related issue number
Checklist