4 ms·

I did some git archaeology. Here are relevant commits and bug reports: * Initial commit with -1...99 cached: https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/842d2ccd

by jwilk 9y ago

I did some git archaeology. Here are relevant commits and bug reports: * Initial commit with -1...99 cached: https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/842d2ccdcd540399501a918b9724d2eaf5599f39 https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/842d2ccdcd540399501... * Cache more negative numbers, -5...99: https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/c91ed400e053dc9f11dd30c84e2bb611999dce50 https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/c91ed400e053dc9f11d... https://bugs.python.org/issue561244 https://bugs.python.org/issue561244 * Cache more positive numbers, -5...256: https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/418a1ef0895e826c65d4113be5d86891c199e15d https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/418a1ef0895e826c65d... https://bugs.python.org/issue1436243 https://bugs.python.org/issue1436243

woodrowbarlow 9y ago
good find! here's a summary: it looks like they searched the standard library for negative integer literals and that's how they settled on -5 for the low end. the high end came after introducing the `bytes` object. it went up to 256 instead of just 255 for size/len checks.