Hi,
yes I know the main usage is to generate pyc files. But marshal is also
used for other stuff
and is the fastest built in serialization method. For some use cases it
makes sense to use it instead of
pickle or others. And people use it not only to generate pyc files.
I only found one case w
I'd like to resolve a long-standing issue of the stable ABI in 3.4:
http://bugs.python.org/issue17162
The issue is that, since PyTypeObject is opaque, module authors cannot
get at tp_free, which they may need to in order to implement tp_dealloc
properly.
Rather than providing the proposed specif
I've debugged this a little bit. I couldn't originally see where the
problem is, since I expected that the code dealing with shared
references shouldn't ever trigger - none of the tuples in the example
are actually shared (i.e. they all have a ref-count of 1, except for
the outer list, which is bot
On Jan 28, 2014, at 09:17 AM, tds...@gmail.com wrote:
>yes I know the main usage is to generate pyc files. But marshal is also used
>for other stuff and is the fastest built in serialization method. For some
>use cases it makes sense to use it instead of pickle or others. And people
>use it not on
2014-01-28 "Martin v. Löwis" :
> Debugging reveals that it is actually the many integer objects which
> trigger the sharing code. So a much simplified example of Victor's
> benchmarking code can use
>
> data = [0]*1000
>
> The difference between version 2 and version 3 here is that v2 marshals
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:22:40 +0100
Victor Stinner wrote:
> 2014-01-28 "Martin v. Löwis" :
> > Debugging reveals that it is actually the many integer objects which
> > trigger the sharing code. So a much simplified example of Victor's
> > benchmarking code can use
> >
> > data = [0]*1000
> >
>
On 28.01.2014 10:23, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jan 28, 2014, at 09:17 AM, tds...@gmail.com wrote:
yes I know the main usage is to generate pyc files. But marshal is also used
for other stuff and is the fastest built in serialization method. For some
use cases it makes sense to use it instead of pi
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:06:57PM -0800, Larry Hastings wrote:
> If I were writing it, it might well come out like this:
[snip example]
+1 on this wording, with one minor caveat:
>.. note: if "times" is specified using a keyword argument, and
>provided with a negative value, repeat yie
On 01/28/2014 04:37 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:06:57PM -0800, Larry Hastings wrote:
If I were writing it, it might well come out like this:
[snip example]
+1 on this wording, with one minor caveat:
.. note: if "times" is specified using a keyword argument, an
Hi Vajrasky,
On 28 January 2014 03:05, Vajrasky Kok wrote:
> I get your point. But strangely enough, I can still recover from
> list(repeat('a', 2**29)). It only slows down my computer. I can ^Z the
> application then kill it later. But with list(repeat('a', times=-1)),
> rebooting the machine is
On 01/28/2014 12:27 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
I'd like to resolve a long-standing issue of the stable ABI in 3.4:
http://bugs.python.org/issue17162
The issue is that, since PyTypeObject is opaque, module authors cannot
get at tp_free, which they may need to in order to implement tp_dealloc
p
On 01/28/2014 06:18 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 01/28/2014 04:37 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:06:57PM -0800, Larry Hastings wrote:
.. note: if "times" is specified using a keyword argument, and
provided with a negative value, repeat yields the object forever.
If you're interested, please see us on the python-tulip mailing list at
Google Groups.
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://
“Note this happens only if there is a tuple in the tuple of the datalist.”
This is rather odd.
Protocol 3 adds support for object instancing. Non-trivial Objects are looked
up in the memo dictionary if they have a reference count larger than 1.
I suspect that the internal tuple has this property,
How often I hear this argument :)
For many people, serialized data is not persisted. But used e.g. for sending
information over the wire, or between processes.
Marshal is very good for that. Additionally, it doesn't have any side effects
since it just stores primitive types and is thus "safe".
On 1/28/2014 10:02 PM, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
marshall is not guaranteed to be backward compatible between Python
versions, so it's generally not a good idea to use it for serialization.
How often I hear this argument :)
For many people, serialized data is not persisted. But used e.g.
On 01/28/2014 06:50 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
See the recent discussion "Deprecation policy" right here in python-dev for a
cogent discussion on this issue. I agree
with Raymond's view, posted on 1/25:
* A good use for deprecations is for features that were flat-out misdesigned
and pr
17 matches
Mail list logo
