Never mind, I got it. This always raised RuntimeError. I see this
should be considered support in favor of keeping the change, since
sharing dicts between threads without locking is already fraught with
RuntimeErrors.
At the same time, has anyone looked at my small patch (added to the
issue) that
I'm confused. Are you saying that that program always raised
RuntimeError, or that it started raising RuntimeError with the new
behavior (3.3 alpha 2)?
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:45 PM, R. David Murray
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:45 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 03:03:13 +1000, Nick Coghlan
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
> > > Here's a different puzzle. Has anyone written a demo yet that provokes
> > > this RuntimeError, without cheating
On 03/30/2012 03:25 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:13:36 -0400, Etienne Robillard
wrote:
So far I was only attempting to verify whether this is related to
PEP-416 or not. If this is indeed related PEP 416, then I must obviously
attest that I must still understand why a immut
On Apr 1, 2012 8:54 AM, "Benjamin Peterson" wrote:
>
> 2012/3/31 Guido van Rossum :
> > Try reducing sys.setcheckinterval().
>
> setcheckinterval() is a no-op since the New-GIL. sys.setswitchinterval
> has superseded it
Ah, that's at least one thing wrong with my initial attempt - I was still
thi
2012/3/31 Guido van Rossum :
> Try reducing sys.setcheckinterval().
setcheckinterval() is a no-op since the New-GIL. sys.setswitchinterval
has superseded it.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.or
Try reducing sys.setcheckinterval().
--Guido van Rossum (sent from Android phone)
On Mar 31, 2012 10:45 AM, "R. David Murray" wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 03:03:13 +1000, Nick Coghlan
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
> > > Here's a different puzzle. Has an
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 03:03:13 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Here's a different puzzle. Has anyone written a demo yet that provokes
> > this RuntimeError, without cheating? (Cheating would be to mutate the
> > dict from *inside* the __eq__
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Here's a different puzzle. Has anyone written a demo yet that provokes
> this RuntimeError, without cheating? (Cheating would be to mutate the
> dict from *inside* the __eq__ or __hash__ method.) If you're serious
> about revisiting this, I
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:48 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:31:03 -0400, "R. David Murray"
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:09:17 -0700, Guido van Rossum
>> wrote:
>> > My original assessment was that this only affects dicts whose keys
>> > have a user-implemented __hash
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 07:43:28 -0400, Etienne Robillard
wrote:
> Yet I might miss how this "new dict" type could potentially induce a
> RuntimeError unless in python 3.3 a new dict proxy alias is introduced
> to perform invariant operations in non thread-safe code.
Etienne, again: issue 14417 ha
The frozendict builtin type was rejected, but we are going to add
types.MappingProxyType: see issue #14386.
types.MappingProxyType(mydict.copy()) is very close to the frozendict
builtin type.
Victor
Thanks, Victor. :)
Will this mean the new dict subclass for CPython will not expose
dictprox
> No, not really. Anyways, I guess I'll have to further dig down why is
> PEP-416 is really important to Python and why it was likewise rejected,
> supposing I confused the pep 416 and issue 14417 along the way.. :-)
The frozendict builtin type was rejected, but we are going to add
types.MappingPr
On 03/30/2012 03:27 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Etienne Robillard
wrote:
On 03/30/2012 03:02 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Hey Etienne, I am honestly trying to understand your contribution but
you seem to have started a discussion about free speech. Trust me t
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Etienne Robillard
wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 03:02 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> Hey Etienne, I am honestly trying to understand your contribution but
>> you seem to have started a discussion about free speech. Trust me that
>> we don't mind your contributions, we
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:13:36 -0400, Etienne Robillard
wrote:
> So far I was only attempting to verify whether this is related to
> PEP-416 or not. If this is indeed related PEP 416, then I must obviously
> attest that I must still understand why a immutable dict would prevent
> this bug or not
On 03/30/2012 03:02 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Hey Etienne, I am honestly trying to understand your contribution but
you seem to have started a discussion about free speech. Trust me that
we don't mind your contributions, we're just trying to understand what
you're saying, and the free speech di
On 03/30/2012 02:23 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Etienne Robillard wrote:
your reasoning is pathetic at best. i pass... Thanks for the tip :-)
The Python Developer list is for the discussion of developing Python,
not for teaching basic programming.
You are being rude, and a smiley does not make yo
your reasoning is pathetic at best. i pass... Thanks for the tip :-)
Cheers,
Etienne
On 03/30/2012 12:18 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Etienne Robillard, 30.03.2012 18:08:
are you also truth allergic or irritated by the consequences of
free speech ?
Please note that "free speech" is a concept th
Etienne Robillard, 30.03.2012 18:08:
> are you also truth allergic or irritated by the consequences of
> free speech ?
Please note that "free speech" is a concept that is different from asking
beginner's computer science questions on the core developer mailing list of
a software development projec
you wish...are you also truth allergic or irritated by the consequences
of free speech ? Please stop giving me orders. You don't even know me
and this is at all not necessary and good netiquette if you want to
bring a point to ponder.
Sorry for others who thinks this is not OT as I its probabl
Etienne Robillard, 30.03.2012 17:45:
> Sorry also if this is OT... :)
Yes, it is. Please do as Nick told you.
Stefan
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.o
"Multiple threads can agree by convention not to mutate a shared dict,
there's no great need for enforcement. Multiple processes can't share
dicts."
its not sure I get completely the meaning of "mutate"... And if
possible, I would like also the rational for the 2nd phrase while we're
at it a
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Etienne Robillard wrote:
> Hi Guido,
>
> I'm sorry for being unclear! I just try actually to learn what thoses
> consequences for theses 'unattended' mutations in dictionary key lookups
> could be, :-)
>
> however, it seems now that I might have touch a nerve witho
Hi Guido,
I'm sorry for being unclear! I just try actually to learn what thoses
consequences for theses 'unattended' mutations in dictionary key lookups
could be, :-)
however, it seems now that I might have touch a nerve without realizing
it. I would therefore appreciate more light on this "
Etienne, I have not understood either of your messages in this thread. They
just did not make sense to me. Do you actually understand the issue at hand?
--Guido
On Friday, March 30, 2012, Etienne Robillard wrote:
> On 03/29/2012 06:07 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:00:20
On 03/29/2012 06:07 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:00:20 +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
R. David Murray, 29.03.2012 22:31:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:09:17 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:58 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
Some of us have expressed uneasiness
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:00:20 +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> R. David Murray, 29.03.2012 22:31:
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:09:17 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:58 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> >>> Some of us have expressed uneasiness about the consequences of dict
> >>
On 03/29/2012 04:48 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:31:03 -0400, "R. David Murray"
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:09:17 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
My original assessment was that this only affects dicts whose keys
have a user-implemented __hash__ or __eq__ implementation
R. David Murray, 29.03.2012 22:31:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:09:17 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:58 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>>> Some of us have expressed uneasiness about the consequences of dict
>>> raising an error on lookup if the dict has been modified, the fix
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:31:03 -0400, "R. David Murray"
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:09:17 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > My original assessment was that this only affects dicts whose keys
> > have a user-implemented __hash__ or __eq__ implementation, and that
> > the number of apps that us
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:09:17 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:58 PM, R. David Murray
> wrote:
> > Some of us have expressed uneasiness about the consequences of dict
> > raising an error on lookup if the dict has been modified, the fix Victor
> > made to solve one of t
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:58 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> Some of us have expressed uneasiness about the consequences of dict
> raising an error on lookup if the dict has been modified, the fix Victor
> made to solve one of the crashers.
>
> I don't know if I speak for the others, but (assuming t
33 matches
Mail list logo
