>
> I guess I just have to remember: use 4 dots, never 3.
which goes great with indention, you shall use 4 spaces to indent, never 3.
Harald
--
GHUM GmbH
Harald Armin Massa
Spielberger Straße 49
70435 Stuttgart
0173/9409607
Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 734971
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Armin Rigo wrote:
>
> I guess I just have to remember: use 4 dots, never 3.
.. or 2 :-)
___
pypy-dev mailing list
pypy-dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
I'll save a google search to a lot of people.
http://docs.python.org/dev/library/constants.html#Ellipsis
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/772124/what-does-the-python-ellipsis-object-do
___
pypy-dev mailing list
pypy-dev@python.org
http://mail.python.or
Hi all,
Unrelated to everything, a comment about Python 3's unrivalled syntax.
You can now be hesitant in your programs! Try it out:
if len(x) > 0 and... and... and x[0] == 5:
More seriously, I'm used to type "..." somewhere to mean "fix me
first!". I didn't move to Python 3 so far, but if
so the situation is even better: even if the PyPy Python 2.x
implementation was not updated any more after 1.6 (which won't be the
case), future versions of PyPy could have *both* a 2.x and a 3.x
interpreter (separately packaged), and *both* would leverage the newer
JIT versions. Is that correct Ma
Hi Miquel,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Miquel Torres wrote:
>> This would remain as a branch for the foreseeable future though,
>> because we still need a Python 2 interpreter, if only to run our own
>> translation toolchain on (and not suffer the 2.5x slow-down of running
>> it on CPython 2
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Eli Stevens (Gmail)
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Yury Selivanov
> wrote:
>> +1 to the question. Why can't it be that way?
>
> If by "that way" you mean "leave python 2.x behind post 1.6" I'd like
> to note that IMO pypy has been under-acknowledged b
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Eli Stevens (Gmail)
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Yury Selivanov
> wrote:
> > +1 to the question. Why can't it be that way?
>
> If by "that way" you mean "leave python 2.x behind post 1.6" I'd like
> to note that IMO pypy has been under-acknowledged b
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> +1 to the question. Why can't it be that way?
If by "that way" you mean "leave python 2.x behind post 1.6" I'd like
to note that IMO pypy has been under-acknowledged by the wider python
community for a very long time. That's finally start
+1 to the question. Why can't it be that way?
On 2011-08-17, at 2:30 PM, Miquel Torres wrote:
> @Armin
>> This would remain as a branch for the foreseeable future though,
>> because we still need a Python 2 interpreter, if only to run our own
>> translation toolchain on (and not suffer the 2.5x
@Armin
> This would remain as a branch for the foreseeable future though,
> because we still need a Python 2 interpreter, if only to run our own
> translation toolchain on (and not suffer the 2.5x slow-down of running
> it on CPython 2.x).
I don't quite follow. Switching to Python 3 (I am not sayin
I'm assuming it was a joke.
A huge amount of people today and likely over the next few years will
continue to rely on python 2.x where x (6,7). Let's not downplay the
importance of PyPy supporting those communities. I agree with you
Jean-Paul, Python 2 support in PyPy harms nothing.
Brian
On W
On 02:54 am, yselivanov...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but that is kind of a weak argument, since the situation with
python 3 changes quickly. More and more libraries are being ported
each month. Supporting python 2 obviously just harms the python
ecosystem, as nobody interested in having two langu
Hi Yury,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> Well, if everybody agrees on the 3rd option, then can we have at least the
> process of porting outlined and reviewed by core devs? No need for a
> super-detailed PEP, though. A simple guideline would help a lot.
Yes, I think
On 2011-08-16, at 8:25 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> Personally I think #3 is the only sane path. We *need* a Python 2 VM for the
> forseeable future. We're pretty lucky in that the JIT, GC, and all the
> honest to god complex code is totally seperate from the VM, so just
> supporting 2 Python VMs
Yes, but that is kind of a weak argument, since the situation with python 3
changes quickly. More and more libraries are being ported each month.
Supporting python 2 obviously just harms the python ecosystem, as nobody
interested in having two languages ;) And pypy could be a very strong
arg
2011/8/16 Yury Selivanov :
> Re option #1, just trying to start a discussion:
>
> I know it's a hard topic, but why not to adapt python 3? Python 3 is the
> future, everybody understands and accepts that. Pypy doesn't have
> substantially good support of c-extenstions, so, let's say, numpy has
Re option #1, just trying to start a discussion:
I know it's a hard topic, but why not to adapt python 3? Python 3 is the
future, everybody understands and accepts that. Pypy doesn't have
substantially good support of c-extenstions, so, let's say, numpy has to be
rewritten anyways. RDB drive
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2011/8/16 Yury Selivanov :
> > Is it possible for pypy core developers to create a high-level roadmap
> with what needs to be done and where? Should python3 be another translation
> target? Will it be required to touch rpython spec? Wh
2011/8/16 Yury Selivanov :
> Is it possible for pypy core developers to create a high-level roadmap with
> what needs to be done and where? Should python3 be another translation
> target? Will it be required to touch rpython spec? What data structures
> need to be introduced? etc. I don't t
Is it possible for pypy core developers to create a high-level roadmap with
what needs to be done and where? Should python3 be another translation target?
Will it be required to touch rpython spec? What data structures need to be
introduced? etc. I don't think this planning will take weeks
2011/8/16 Timur Tkachev :
> Hello,
> Guys, maybe my question had been asked numerous times, but I couldn't google
> even a remote answer to it. What are the plans of python 3 support? Please
> shed some light on this topic. Last poll in your blog regarding what's
> holding off the pypy usage & a
I'm inclined to agree: Python 3.x is important for PyPy's future.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Timur Tkachev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Guys, maybe my question had been asked numerous times, but I couldn't
> google even a remote answer to it. What are the plans of python 3 support?
> Please shed s
Hello,
Guys, maybe my question had been asked numerous times, but I couldn't google
even a remote answer to it. What are the plans of python 3 support? Please
shed some light on this topic. Last poll in your blog regarding what's
holding off the pypy usage & acceptance showed that people do hav
24 matches
Mail list logo
