"tomer filiba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> read(x) guarantees to return x bytes, or EOFError otherwise
> (and also restoing the stream position).
This is a poor choice of the fundamental operation. For example when
recoding bytes to characters, an analogous interface for a character
stream is i
On Thu, 4 May 2006 05:05 pm, Birch, Bill wrote:
> The Types-SIG archives link
> (http://mail.python.org/pipermail/types-sig/) gives a 404 error.
>
> Does anyone know how to get the archive back?
Had no idea that email to mailman would end up here!
Anyhow, I found another copy of the archive here:
* Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-02 22:20:51 +]:
> Although if you are supporting surrogates, then __getitem__ and __getslice__
> won't be O(1), will they? That's why I asked about UCS-2, which is what I
Unfortunately, if Python is compiled with 16-bit storage for unicode
characters, then
On 5/3/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Drop this portion of the proposal
> 2) Go with the 'naked star' syntax anyway over the objections, and
> explain the rationale in the docs;
> 3) Come up with a separator character we can agree on
> 4) Come up with a brilliantly-devised alternative
T
[Guido]
> This is way above my head. :-)
Of course it's not, but the issues are subtle and messy enough that
it's a burden to make sufficient time for them. I'm sympathetic to
that ;-)
> The only requirement *I* would like to see is that for floats that
> exactly represent ints (or longs for tha
Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good point. Making the input 1025 bytes, and performing block[:-1]
> resulted in a running time of 13.94 seconds.
I just thought of a better way of benchmarking list-like over-allocation
semantics.
For assumed smaller-sized writes:
Use an array, and
On 5/3/06, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd be happiest if P3K floats didn't support __mod__ or __divmod__ at
> all. Floating mod is so rare it doesn't need syntactic support, and
> the try-to-be-like-integer __mod__ and __divmod__ floats support now
> can deliver surprises to all users
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> I just thought of a better way of benchmarking list-like over-allocation
> semantics.
here's another way:
$ more Objects/unicodeobject.c
...
PyObject *
PyUnicode_Join(PyObject *separator, PyObject *seq)
{
size_t res_alloc = 100; /* # allocated bytes for string in res
Guido wrote:>Does Java have them? I know very little Java, but all the other object-oriented languages I use support in-out and out parameters. For example:C++:void foo(int ¶m) {param += 5;}void bar(int ¶m) {param = 10;}// C++ does not distinguish between in-out and out parameters.
Can you please post the benchmarking code?
On 5/4/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Good point. Making the input 1025 bytes, and performing block[:-1]
> > resulted in a running time of 13.94 seconds.
>
> I just thought of a better way
On 5/4/06, Rudy Rudolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
// C++ does not distinguish between in-out and out parameters.// call themint x = 2; foo(x); // x is now 7
It is important to avoid this obfuscation.C's &addr is slightly better, but still pretty error prone with collections, like a string
[Rudy Rudolph writes to propose adding in-out parameters in Py3K]
Rudy:
Special offer, good this week only!
If you send me a sample piece of code using in-out parameters written
in any language I can understand, I will provide (free of charge!) a
translation into highly readable idiomatic Python
"Tim Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If Python switched to C99's definition of % for both integers and
> floats, that would work out better so far as it goes. But Python's %
> makes much more sense for integers, so that would be a flea on the
> tail of the dog wagging the guy walking the do
"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you please post the benchmarking code?
No problem.
- Josiah
import time
import array
block = 1025*'\0'
block2 = array.array("B", 1024*[0])
desired_size = 16*1024*1024
incrs = []
for mns in (1024, 0):
y = []
x = 1024
while x <
Talin wrote:
> I have to admit that while the reasoning behind the use of the
> '*' character is logical, the logic seems a little convoluted. Part of this
> is due to the use of negative logic - the absence of something
> that would normally be there (i.e. a keyword after the '*') indicates
> a r
15 matches
Mail list logo
