GeezerVison

Quick comment: Why not add a CALL_INTRINSIC_2 opcode (assuming we expect more of these)? The variable stack effect based on comparison with an arbitrary constant feels a little fragile. Maybe it would feel less arbitrary if the constant was actually 128 (i.e., bit 7, 0x80).

I considered this, the down side is we have two opcodes for non-perf-critical stuff. I don't have a strong opinion either way. @markshannon ?

Is FORMAT_VALUE performance critical? It could be replaced by a couple of intrinsic functions.

Is FORMAT_VALUE performance critical? It could be replaced by a couple of intrinsic functions.

Possibly. Most of it could become a helper function. This would lose the fast path for f"aaa{foo}zzz" if foo is exactly a Unicode string, but I'm not sure how important that really is.

Usually we want to do dispatching in the dispatch loop, not within instructions.
However, the point of the CALL_INTRINSIC instruction is to reduce the umber of instructions, so its less clear cut.

On balance, I still think we want two instructions. The extra test and branch is messy; two instructions would make for clearer code and we aren't that short of opcodes.

Regarding FORMAT_VALUE, I refer you to the venerable #6132 which split FORMAT_VALUE into CONVERT_VALUE, FORMAT_SIMPLE and FORMAT_WITH_SPEC.

CONVERT_VALUE could be replaced with CALL_INSTINSIC_1 and FORMAT_WITH_SPEC could be replaced with CALL_INSTINSIC_2. FORMAT_SIMPLE is simple enough, and probably common enough, that it merits its own instruction.