Jack Diederich wrote:
> PyObject_MALLOC does a good job of reusing small allocations but it
> can't quite manage the same speed as a free list, especially for things that
> have some extra setup involved (tuples have a free list for each length).
I would question that statement, for any practical
"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/3/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > > > If the only code that benefits from such changes are "very *simple*",
> > > > then I think that says something a
On 7/3/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > > If the only code that benefits from such changes are "very *simple*",
> > > then I think that says something about its necessity.
> >
> > The point is that they're only "ve
Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > If the only code that benefits from such changes are "very *simple*",
> > then I think that says something about its necessity.
>
> The point is that they're only "very simple" if you
> can write them using access to an outer scope
Here's the summary for the first half of June. Thanks in advance for
your comments and corrections!
=
Announcements
=
---
Python 2.5 schedule
---
Python 2.5 is moving steadily towards its next release. See `PEP
356`_ for more details and
Hi guys,
I filed this bug but sourceforge is down so I can't update it:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1513646&group_id=5470&atid=105470
Basically, os.access returns the wrong result for W_OK, and that's
because instead of using & it uses && to see if the file is read on
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 02:09:19PM -0400, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> Setobject code allocates several internal objects on the heap that are
> cleaned up by the PySet_Fini function. This is a fine design choice,
> but it often makes debugging applications with embedded python more
> difficult.
>
Tim Peters wrote:
> Scheme has no loops in Python's sense --
> things like "do" are shorthand for expressing stylized recursion
But it does have foreach and map, which are the
moral equivalent of Python's for-loops and list
comprehensions. The body is a lambda which takes
the loop variable as a p
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> I believe that names in
> lambdas/nested-functions referring to local names in the outer scope should
> really be bound at function definition time
No, you don't want that, because it would make functions that
call each other very awkward to arrange.
> And it's also handy t
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> If the only code that benefits from such changes are "very *simple*",
> then I think that says something about its necessity.
The point is that they're only "very simple" if you
can write them using access to an outer scope. Without
that ability, they become less simple, l
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Andrew Koenig wrote:
> I'd rather see a simpler rule: = never defines a variable in a surrounding
> scope. If you want to affect the binding of such a variable, you have to
> define it explicitly in the scope in which you want it.
>
> Example:
>
> x = 42
> def f():
"A.M. Kuchling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.python.org/sf/1488934 argues that Python's use of fwrite()
> has incorrect error checking; this most affects file.write(), but
> there are other uses of fwrite() in the core. It seems fwrite() can
> return N bytes written even if an error
http://www.python.org/sf/1488934 argues that Python's use of fwrite()
has incorrect error checking; this most affects file.write(), but
there are other uses of fwrite() in the core. It seems fwrite() can
return N bytes written even if an error occurred, and the code needs
to also check ferror(f->f
At 01:58 PM 7/2/2006 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I believe the problem has nothing to do with how many scopes a block/function
>definition has, but with what the lambda does with the scope it's given.
>Currently it remembers the block and looks up the nescessary variables in it
>when it's invo
Hi everyone, Even though I'm new on this list I think I've got something
sensible to say on this one. (I've been following this list a bit through the
archives)
Andrew Koenig wrote:
> You seem to be right -- the problem is not that Python is lexically scoped,
> but that when you define a variabl
Hi Georg,
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:39:13PM +0200, Georg Brandl wrote:
> + case LOAD_CONST:
> + cumlc = lastlc + 1;
> + /* Skip over LOAD_CONST POP_TOP */
> + if (codestr[i+3] == POP_TO
16 matches
Mail list logo
