>> Ah, now I understand; you do need a single ssize_t either on the dict
>> or at the head of the values array to indicate how many slots it has
>> actually allocated. It *may* also be worthwhile to add a second
>> ssize_t to indicate how many are currently in use, for faster results
>> in case of
On 17 February 2012 at 17:42 Jim Jewett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:50 AM, "Martin v. Löwis"
wrote:
> >>> Good idea. However, how do you track per-dict how large the
> >>> table is?
>
> [Or, rather, what is the highest index needed to store any values
> that are actually set for this ins
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:50 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> Good idea. However, how do you track per-dict how large the
>>> table is?
[Or, rather, what is the highest index needed to store any values
that are actually set for this instance.]
> To determine whether it needs to grow the array, i
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:10:51 +
Mark Shannon wrote:
> On 16/02/12 20:45, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:18:14 +
> > Mark Shannon wrote:
> >> Proposed PEP for new dictionary implementation, PEP 410?
> >> is attached.
> >>
> >
> > So, I'm running a few benchmarks using
On 16/02/12 20:45, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:18:14 +
Mark Shannon wrote:
Proposed PEP for new dictionary implementation, PEP 410?
is attached.
So, I'm running a few benchmarks using Twisted's test suite
(see https://bitbucket.org/pitrou/t3k/wiki/Home).
At the end of
>> Good idea. However, how do you track per-dict how large the table is?
>
> Why would you want to?
>
> The per-instance array needs to be at least as large as the highest
> index used by any key for which it has a value; if the keys table gets
> far larger (or even shrinks), that doesn't really
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:34 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 16.02.2012 19:24, schrieb Jim J. Jewett:
>> PEP author Mark Shannon wrote
>> (in
>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120208/05be469a/attachment.txt):
>>> ... allows ... (the ``__dict__`` attribute of an obje
Am 16.02.2012 19:24, schrieb Jim J. Jewett:
>
>
> PEP author Mark Shannon wrote
> (in
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120208/05be469a/attachment.txt):
>
>> ... allows ... (the ``__dict__`` attribute of an object) to share
>> keys with other attribute dictionaries of
Am 13.02.2012 13:46, schrieb Mark Shannon:
> Revised PEP for new dictionary implementation, PEP 412?
> is attached.
Committed as PEP 412.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-d
Am 11.02.2012 22:22, schrieb Mark Shannon:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Hello Mark,
>>
>> I think the PEP should explain what happens when a keys table needs
>> resizing when setting an object's attribute.
>
> If the object is the only instance of a class, it remains split,
> otherwise the table is
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:18:14 +
Mark Shannon wrote:
> Proposed PEP for new dictionary implementation, PEP 410?
> is attached.
>
So, I'm running a few benchmarks using Twisted's test suite
(see https://bitbucket.org/pitrou/t3k/wiki/Home).
At the end of `python -i bin/trial twisted.internet.t
PEP author Mark Shannon wrote
(in
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120208/05be469a/attachment.txt):
> ... allows ... (the ``__dict__`` attribute of an object) to share
> keys with other attribute dictionaries of instances of the same class.
Is "the same class" a delibe
Revised PEP for new dictionary implementation, PEP 412?
is attached.
Cheers,
Mark.
PEP: XXX
Title: Key-Sharing Dictionary
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Mark Shannon
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 08-Feb-2012
Python-Version: 3.3 or 3.4
P
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello Mark,
I think the PEP should explain what happens when a keys table needs
resizing when setting an object's attribute.
If the object is the only instance of a class, it remains split,
otherwise the table is combined.
Most OO code will set attributes in the __init__
Hello Mark,
I think the PEP should explain what happens when a keys table needs
resizing when setting an object's attribute.
Reading the implementation, it seems the sharing can disappear
definitely, which seems a bit worrying.
Regards
Antoine.
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:18:14 +
Mark Shannon
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 2/8/2012 2:18 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
A pretty clear draft PEP.
Changes to repr() output and iteration order:
For most cases, this will be unchanged.
However for some split-table dictionaries the iteration order will
change.
Neither of these cons should be a problem.
Mod
On 2/8/2012 2:18 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
A pretty clear draft PEP.
Changes to repr() output and iteration order:
For most cases, this will be unchanged.
However for some split-table dictionaries the iteration order will
change.
Neither of these cons should be a problem.
Modules which meddle wi
Proposed PEP for new dictionary implementation, PEP 410?
is attached.
Cheers,
Mark.
PEP: XXX
Title: Key-Sharing Dictionary
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Mark Shannon
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 08-Feb-2012
Python-Version: 3.3 or 3.4
P
18 matches
Mail list logo
