|Reported by:||(removed)||Owned by:||Adrian Holovaty|
|Cc:||Triage Stage:||Design decision needed|
|Has patch:||yes||Needs documentation:||no|
|Needs tests:||no||Patch needs improvement:||no|
Description (last modified by )
Tucked away in NodeList.render is a fun little isinstance check, basically
if isinstance(node, Node): bits.append(self.render_node(node, context)) else: bits.append(node)
With the render method being a hook method for derivative classes to intercept exceptions, and add some debugging info in; two limiting points to scaling there
1) Because ForNode uses it to store strings, the isinstance is required- no other code uses it for this functionality, making me think ForNode shouldn't be forcing NodeList to do something odd, should do the job itself
2) Because DebugNodeList overrides render_node, instead of render, an extra func call is involved for every node; again, single usage slows down the common usage.
So... question is, why should ForNode use it? Have yet to find any comments/explanation code wise, only thing I can *guess* is that someone was trying to extend DebugNodeList.render_node behaviour down through a for; as said, this hurts the common case.
Realize the first reaction is likely going to be another "micro-optimization is evil" comment; thing is, while it's not a huge gain like say removing dispatch.send invocations from Models.*, it's a constant waste occuring in any NodeList.render (which are common enough). Usual usage scenario I'm abusing for testing pegs it as a constant 1.4s hit against trunk 64s (26s if using my misc patches sitting in tickets); might not seem like much, but it's yet another spot where it's spinning it's wheels without reason.
So... why is ForNode abusing NodeList here? Oversight? Worth preserving?