On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 5:36 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wes McKinney wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> JIT is
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>
>
> Wes McKinney wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
JIT is really the way to go. It is one thing that a JIT could
>>optimize t
Wes McKinney wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>> JIT is really the way to go. It is one thing that a JIT could
>optimize the
>>> case where you pass a callback to a function and inline it run-ti
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> JIT is really the way to go. It is one thing that a JIT could optimize the
>> case where you pass a callback to a function and inline it run-time. But
>> even if it doesn't
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 04/30/2012 06:30 PM, Wes McKinney wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:19 AM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30 April 2012 14:49, Wes McKinney wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:56 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> JIT is really the way to go. It is one thing that a JIT could optimize the
> case where you pass a callback to a function and inline it run-time. But
> even if it doesn't get that fancy, it'd be great to just be able to write
> somethi
On 04/30/2012 06:30 PM, Wes McKinney wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:19 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
On 30 April 2012 14:49, Wes McKinney wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:56 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
On 29 April 2012 08:42, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:25 PM, mark fl
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:19 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 30 April 2012 14:49, Wes McKinney wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:56 AM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> On 29 April 2012 08:42, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:25 PM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 28 Ap
On 30 April 2012 14:49, Wes McKinney wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:56 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 29 April 2012 08:42, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:25 PM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
On 28 April 2012 22:04, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Was chatting with W
On 30 April 2012 14:49, Wes McKinney wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:56 AM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>> On 29 April 2012 08:42, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:25 PM, mark florisson
>>> wrote:
On 28 April 2012 22:04, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Was chatting with W
On 30 April 2012 14:55, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> mark florisson, 30.04.2012 15:24:
>> So lets assume we want to use the following syntax: stdio =
>> cython.cimport_module("libc.stdio").
>>
>> In the TransformBuiltinMethods you add another case to the
>> visit_SimpleCallNode
>
> That seems way too la
mark florisson, 30.04.2012 15:24:
> So lets assume we want to use the following syntax: stdio =
> cython.cimport_module("libc.stdio").
>
> In the TransformBuiltinMethods you add another case to the
> visit_SimpleCallNode
That seems way too late in the pipeline to me (see Pipeline.py). I think
thi
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:56 AM, mark florisson
wrote:
> On 29 April 2012 08:42, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:25 PM, mark florisson
>> wrote:
>>> On 28 April 2012 22:04, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Was chatting with Wes today about the usual problem many of us have
On 30 April 2012 13:14, Ian Bell wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:58 PM, mark florisson
> wrote:
>>
>> On 29 April 2012 01:33, Ian Bell wrote:
>> > Hello Cython users,
>> >
>> > I haven't the foggiest idea how easy this would be to implement, or how
>> > to
>> > do it in the first place, bu
14 matches
Mail list logo
