Skip to main content

Utilizing Python's Assert Statements for Compile-Time Checks

Some recent discussions around the 'net have been tossing around the ideas about static typing in python, briding static and dynamic typing in C++-like languages, and similar concepts of making static-typing more dynamic or dynamic languages more optimized in static-typing ways. Particularly, I was sparked by Michael Feather's "Set of Tests" article. There are different ways we might look into bringing those concepts to Python, and I rolled a few of them around in my head. My final mental landing was "Can we utilize the assert statement to inform the compiler about these tests that are absolute?". Of course, you probably can see how this is a lot like what assert does now, with the only difference being between run-time and compile-time being the target of the rules. This leads us to looking for where an assert could be compile-time verified and then used to optimize code. The most basic compile-time assert I can think of us "assert builtin is builtin", which would be a contract that the name 'builtin' will continue to be bound to the default builtin object, and won't be changed. This means we can do "assert isinstance is isinstance" and the compiler can make assumptions it could not before: that when it sees the name isinstance, it knows exactly what it is before runtime. This opens up other expressions that use these known names and promise other things to the compiler. We could do things like "assert isinstance(l, sequence)" or "assert len(l)==3", which would create a pair of contracts that l was some kind of 3 element sequence, and the compiler could make it a tuple for optimization.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this. CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer.  One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC? It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on

The Range of Content on Planet Python

I've gotten a number of requests lately to contribute only Python related material to the Planet Python feeds and to be honest these requests have both surprised and insulted me, but they've continued. I am pretty sure they've come from a very small number of people, but they have become consistent. This is probably because of my current habit of writing about NaNoWriMo every day and those who aren't interested not looking forward to having the rest of the month reading about my novel. Planet Python will be getting a feed of only relevant posts in the future, but I'm going to be honest: I am kind of upset about it. I don't care if anyone thinks it is unreasonable of me to be upset about it, because the truth is Planet Python means something to me. It was probably the first thing I did that I considered "being part of the community" when I submitted my meager RSS feed to be added some seven years ago. My blog and my name on the list of authors at Plan

Javascript Module Loaders Considered Harmful

Introduction I’m coming to an opinion of Javascript module loaders that is profoundly negative and I’d like to express why I think they are, generally, a bad idea. However, I do think they have a place, which I’ll get to at the end. Now, I understand I might be in the minority here. Between the competing specifications of CommonJS and AMD modules, loader systems like RequireJS or the (honestly really awesome) Google Module Server, and the huge cultural influence of Node on the Javascript world, you’d be hard pressed to argue against Javascript modules these days. Scripts are old hat, too stupid, too inflexible. Everyone knows that and no one would make an argument in their favor, right? I’m going to step out on a limb and say “Javascript Module Loaders Considered Harmful” and I know the baggage involved with declaring something “Considered Harmful”. I mean every ounce of context that phrase carries with it, and I hope I can persuade you. Harm #1: Confused Debuggers