-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Guido van Rossum napsal(a):
> I think we may have to expand our selection creteria, since the
> existing approach has led to a small PSRT whose members are all too
> busy to do the necessary legwork. At the same time we need to remain
> selective -- I
On Aug 24, 3:43 pm, "Matt Giuca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Michele,
>
> Do you have a URL for this blog?
>
Sorry, here it is:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/index.jsp?blogger=micheles
___
Python-Dev mailing lis
Recently I have opened a blog on Artima and I am publishing a
few Python-related essays I had in store. In particular a trilogy
of papers about "super". From the foreword:
"""
In 2004 I decided to write a comprehensive paper documenting
``super`` pitfalls and traps, with the goal of publishing it
On Jun 29, 5:12 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 3:36 pm, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > eyal.lotem+pyutils gmail.com gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > That would be no worse than what happens now - but its
On Jun 29, 3:36 pm, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> eyal.lotem+pyutils gmail.com gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > That would be no worse than what happens now - but its still not
> > perfect (__del__ ordering issues). Also, you would need to temporarily
&
On Jun 29, 3:04 pm, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> eyal.lotem+pyutils gmail.com gmail.com> writes:
>
> > This is exactly what my post tried to address.
> > I assumed it was clear that module clearing is the wrong solution, and
> > that it was al
On Jun 29, 7:52 am, "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> >> It's a fact of Python development: __del__ methods cannot safely reference
&
On Jun 28, 6:32 pm, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Example:
>
> > import os
> > class RunningFile(object):
> > filename = '/tmp/running'
> > def __init__(self):
> > open(self.filename, &#x
On Jun 28, 6:21 pm, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eyal Lotem wrote:
> > Example:
>
> > import os
> > class RunningFile(object):
> > filename = '/tmp/running'
> > def __init__(self):
> > open(self.filena
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:20 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In general, any solution of the "do GC less often" needs to deal with
> cases where lots of garbage gets produced in a short amount of time
> (e.g. in a tight loop), and which run
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:33 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I don't think expecting people to tweak gc parameters when they witness
> > performance problems is reasonable.
>
> What follows from that? To me, the natural conclusion is &qu
> Does it bother you that you need ()s to make instances elsewhere?
> That you have to type int('123') instead of int, '123'?
Not at all...Python never supported this.
Cheers,
David
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.or
> I can help. I don't have a patch against the trunk but my first
> revisions of the patch
> for annotations did handle things like tuple parameters which are
> relevant to 2.6.
Ah yes, I forgot about nested parameters. I see that 53170 still has
nested parameters, but they were removed at some la
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Kevin Jacobs bioinformed.com> gmail.com>
> writes:
> >
> > +1 on a C API for enabling and disabling GC. I have several instances
> where
> I create a large number of objects
+1 on a C API for enabling and disabling GC.
I have several instances where I create a large number of objects non-cyclic
objects where I see huge GC overhead (30+ seconds with gc enabled, 0.15
seconds when disabled).
+1000 to fixing the garbage collector to be smart enough to self-regulate
itsel
On Jun 19, 4:16 pm, "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> complex change to the syntax and code generator. Your motivation is
> also suspect: 2.6 is supposed to be a stepping stone towards 3.0, not
> a safe haven for people who don't like certain 3.0 feature
It is possible to get both ordered dict and sorted dict semantics in
the same type if you replace (key, value) pairs for dictionary entries
with (key,value,order) triples. The third component is a value that
indicates the place of the entry relative to the other entries. To get
an ordered dict, __s
On Jun 14, 4:39 pm, Armin Ronacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> - in XML/HTML processing it's often desired to keep the attributes of
> an tag ordered during processing. So that input ordering is the
> same as the output ordering.
Munging XML is a niche.
>
>
On May 2, 7:54 am, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I can only speak from my own experience, which is that
> whenever I've had a problem involving multiple inheritance,
> super() didn't solve it. What did solve it was either
> refactoring so that th
On Jan 15, 2008 6:24 AM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:41:47PM +, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> > It makes sense, but personally I have never heard before of ~/.local.
> > Whereas ~/bin is something I am quite familiar with.
>
> Me
Hello, python-dev!
One-liner summary: Would it be possible to change PyAPI_DATA(type) into
PyAPI_DATA(type, variablename) to help portability to funny platforms?
We've been working on porting the Python 2.5.1 core to the Symbian S60
smartphone platform. Unlike the previous 2.2.2 port, this time w
On Dec 6, 2007 1:35 AM, Neil Toronto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I've applied Armin's patch to 2.6 (it was nearly clean) and am
> playing with it. cls.name lookups are 15-20% faster than mine, and
> inst.name lookups are 5-10% faster. His is also winning on hasatt
On Dec 5, 2007 5:50 PM, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:48 PM 12/5/2007 +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
> >Neil Toronto schrieb:
> > > So Jim and PJE finally convinced me to do it the right way. :) Thanks
> > > guys - it turned out very nice.
>
Just to chime in from the other side of the coin.
I'm actively trying to hire qualified scientific programmers with strong
Python experience. Unfortunately, I've had little success finding
candidates with actual Python knowledge, resorting mainly to hiring those
who've seen it and can readily lea
On 9/22/07, Bruce Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've added a new function to itertools called 'concat'. This function is
> much like *chain*, but takes all of the iterables as a single argument.
>
I've needed this once or twice, though my imp
On 8/3/07, Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2007/8/3, Andrew Bennetts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I don't really think there's much reason to make "iter()" work. As you
> say,
>
> What bad thing could happen if we make iter() w
On 7/8/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ahem. I hope you have a better use case for getitem() than that
(regardless of the default issue). I find it clearer to write that as
try:
compid = root[ns.company_id].next()
except StopIteration:
compid = None
else:
compid
with no apparent activity. So if the overhead of mro lookups is that
bothersome, it may be well worth your time to review the patch.
URL:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1700288&group_id=5470&atid=305470
-Kevin
On 6/9/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTE
I've tested the patch and it works as advertised for me.
On 4/23/07, Florian Festi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
I posted patch 1675951 a while ago that fixes a performance problem for
small reads in the gzip stdlib module. It also removes the necessity for
seeking while reading
On 4/7/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/7/07, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/7/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's a patch implementing collections.counts() as suggested above:
>
> The name doesn&#
"Neal Norwitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Things are getting better, but we still have some really important
> outstanding issues. PLEASE CONTINUE TESTING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
I've run into a problem with a big application that I wasn't able to
reproduce with a
On 7/21/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brett> Sure. It can also wait until we begin discussing the transitionBrett> to our next bug tracker.Would be kinda nice if the new bug tracker allowed submitters to enter afollowup email address without formally logg
That'll teach me to fire off emails while running out the door. Thanks.-KevinOn 7/21/06, John Benediktsson <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> The is _active check, unless it intendeds to check for either empty or
> None, should probably be revised to:>> def __del__(self):
On 7/21/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Delaney, Timothy (Tim) wrote:> Looks like there's a bug in Popen.__del__ in 2.5. I'm not in a position> to have a look right now.For those not watching python-checkins, a check for "is not None" has been
added be
Reported to the list about a week ago, with analysis. Didn't get a response. Won't use sourceforge. Sorry about the top post.-KevinOn 7/20/06, Delaney, Timothy (Tim)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Larry Hastings wrote:
> I run the following script:> --> from subproce
During my testing of Python 2.5b2, I've found something that may be worthy of discussion. I suspect that recent GC and finalization changes have altered the behavior of the Popen object in subprocess.py. I am now getting many many many finalization warnings in my code like:
Exception exceptions.A
On 7/6/06, Evan Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Talin wrote:> I propose to create a new type of scoping rule, which I will call> "explicit" lexical scoping, that will co-exist with the current> "implicit" scoping rule that exists in Python today.
I'd li
On 6/23/06, Nick Maclaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:>> > >Unfortunately, that doesn't help, because it is not where the issues> > >are. What I don't know is how much you know about numerical models,
> > >IEEE 754 in particular
On 6/22/06, Nick Maclaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not a lot. Annex F in itself is only numerically insane. You need to> > know the rest of the standard, including that which is documented only> > in SC22WG14 messages, to realise the full horror.
[...]>Unfor
On 6/11/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kevin Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Try this at home:> import collections> d=collections.defaultdict(int)> d.iterkeys().next() # Seg fault
> d.iteritems().next() # Seg fault> d.itervalues().next() # Fine and da
An aside before I report this bug:_I_HATE_SOURCEFORGE_. If it doesn't bloody accept anonymous bug reports then it bloody well shouldn't let you type in a nice, detailed, well through-out report and then toss it in the toilet when you hit Submit, and also not allow one dive in after it by using the
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
> On 9/5/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Whenever the template definition and its use are not directly
> > adjacent, the template is that much harder to understand (i.e.,
This `i.e.` should have read `e.
Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the above changes, the following would work:
>"$1: $2".format("Number of bees", "0.5")
> And produce:
>"Number of bees: 0.5"
>
> When pre-compiling string.Templates, the
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think of the trick (that I wasn't aware of before)
> used in Java and .net of putting an optional position specifier
> in the format, and using positional arguments? It would be a
> little less verbose and with sen
James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OK, I'm changing my mind again about the names again.
> >
> > Exception as the root and StandardError can stay; the only new
> > proposal would then be to make bare 'except:' call StandardError.
>
&g
> > [Guido, on {for,while}/else]
>
> How would a PEP to *remove* this feature fare today?
-1.
It took me a while (actually a *long* while) to start using else
clauses in loops, but I've learned to love them. Although there
aren't that many use cases, they make the code more readable (and
writabl
"Andrew Koenig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, this usage shows that the syntax is unnecessary in this context,
> but what I care about is
>
> def f(x as (a, b)):
> # ...
>
> which has the advantage over the alternative
>
47 matches
Mail list logo
