Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve writes:
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
[really butchered quotes omitted]
> [Prof. George Sheldrick] is one of the brightest people you'll find
> on this planet.
Ad hominem argument. My point is simply that he knows what he needs
and said so. He doesn't need a languag
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Some,
like
the
"field
heavyweight"
quoted
by
the
OP,
are
refreshingly
> pragmatic
about
it.
They're
quite
happy
to
use
a
language
that
is
> pretty
crappy
for
most
purposes
today
considered
practical
because
it
> does
a
great
job
of
c
Mike Meyer writes:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:20:00 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Mike Meyer writes:
> > > On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:22:04 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Wrong. The recommend "make install" overwrites the "python"
Adam Olsen writes:
> > Setuptools [pybang] works with versions 2.3 through 2.5, but of
> > course that's because of the .exe wrappers.
As independent corroboration, this is basically the same way that
DJGPP (the DOS-extended version of GCC) provides Unix-y features like
access to the environmen
Brett Cannon wrote:
> Well, I am a little leery of another free list. I personally don't
> love the fact that there are various caches and free lists laying
> about in the code without a central place to turn them off or clear
> them (or at least list them in a comment somewhere). And the problem
>
On Feb 5, 2008 2:30 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think Christian means single digit integers. But I thought we
> > already did this for positive numbers? So is the proposal to also
> > cover negative numbers?
>
> We don't have a free list, but a cache for them, and only fo
I agree. A wiki page for "leaving just the head of the snake" would
be the correct solution.
On Feb 4, 2008 4:34 PM, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/4/08, Charles Merriam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What about a formal dependency plan instead?
>
> > Python would remain 'batteries
> I think Christian means single digit integers. But I thought we
> already did this for positive numbers? So is the proposal to also
> cover negative numbers?
We don't have a free list, but a cache for them, and only for numbers
between -5 and +256. Christian proposes a freelist, similar to the
s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
| On Jan 25, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
|> (*) I can only speculate that it's because Jim, whose ZODB is probably
|> pickle's most intensive user,
|
| Maybe, but I'm not sure.
Any persistence system is pickle intensiv
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I'm puzzled as to how you arrive at this upper bound. You can surely
> have more than 2**16 integer objects whose abs values are all
> below 2**15, no?
Oh ... I see. You are right and I did a mistake by confusing the amount
of objects with the range. I'd better add an uppe
> Since the free list is limited to small longs, it will consume less than
> 1,5 MB on a 64bit OS and less than 900kb on a 32bit OS in a worst case
> scenario (2 * (1<<15) ~ 65k objects with a size of 14 / 22 byte each).
I'm puzzled as to how you arrive at this upper bound. You can surely
have mor
Brett Cannon wrote:
> I think Christian means single digit integers. But I thought we
> already did this for positive numbers? So is the proposal to also
> cover negative numbers?
Ne, we don't use a free list for longs. In the 2.x series floats and
ints are allocated in blocks of 1000 objects. The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "size of 1 or -1". Do you mean you only keep
> the numbers 1 and -1 on the free list? It's not obvious to me what a size
> of -1 is. Do you mean positive and negative numbers which fit in one byte
> or one long word?
I should have explain
On Feb 5, 2008 12:13 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Christian> I've implemented a free list for small long objects with a
> Christian> size of 1 or -1.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "size of 1 or -1". Do you mean you only keep
> the numbers 1 and -1 on the free list? It's not obv
Christian> I've implemented a free list for small long objects with a
Christian> size of 1 or -1.
I'm not sure what you mean by "size of 1 or -1". Do you mean you only keep
the numbers 1 and -1 on the free list? It's not obvious to me what a size
of -1 is. Do you mean positive and nega
I've implemented a free list for small long objects with a size of 1 or
-1. I wanted to test how large the malloc overhead is. The result was
astonishing. The free list quadrupled the speed of a simple test:
$ ./python -m timeit "for i in range(100): list(range(1000))"
Without patch:
10 loops, be
I took the liberty of asking DRH's advice based on his experiences with
sqlite/2/3, and he graciously replied:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:02 AM
> To: Robert Brewer
> Subject: Re: Python 3 needs your help
>
On Feb 5, 2008 10:57 AM, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:43 AM 2/5/2008 -0700, Adam Olsen wrote:
> >So why don't we add a windows equivalent of the shebang? Files could
> >then start like this:
> >
> >#!/usr/bin/python2.3
> >#¡C:/python23/python
>
> FYI, setuptools uses and suppo
At 10:43 AM 2/5/2008 -0700, Adam Olsen wrote:
>So why don't we add a windows equivalent of the shebang? Files could
>then start like this:
>
>#!/usr/bin/python2.3
>#¡C:/python23/python
FYI, setuptools uses and supports #! lines on Windows, with the
executable path in quotes if it contains spaces
On Feb 4, 2008 4:56 PM, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:34:56 -0800 (PST) "Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As Python developers you have to realize that for many people Python is
> > "just" a core around which they build much bigger applicat
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:01:05 +1000 Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> > Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >
> >> I personally haven't seen anything to convince me that the 2.x -> 3.0
> >> upgrade cycle is going to be significantly worse from a deployment point
> >>
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:34:56 -0800 (PST) "Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Python developers you have to realize that for many people Python is
> "just" a core around which they build much bigger applications. If the
> success of Python is to continue, you have to give your
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:20:00 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Mike Meyer writes:
> > On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:22:04 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Marcin ___Qrczak___ Kowalczyk writes:
> > > > Dnia 03-02-2008, N o godzinie 10:24 +0900, Ste
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:22:04 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Marcin ___Qrczak___ Kowalczyk writes:
> > Dnia 03-02-2008, N o godzinie 10:24 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull pisze:
> > > I don't see any need to shorten "python3.0" to "python3".
> > There is a need. Using #!/usr
James> Not much fun for users of the PYTHONPATH env var though, eh?
PYTHONPATH3 anyone? Or maybe .pth files are sufficient. So far I've been
able to mangle my PYTHONSTARTUP file to work with both Python 2 and Python
3. That's not very sophisticated code though.
Skip
__
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> I personally haven't seen anything to convince me that the 2.x -> 3.0
>> upgrade cycle is going to be significantly worse from a deployment point
>> of view than a 2.x -> 2.(x+2) upgrade cycle where breakages are also
>> possible (e.g.
26 matches
Mail list logo
