"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Thomas Wouters writes:
> >
> > > Neither of those (shipping sources or dynamically linking to
> > > GMP) would solve the LGPL issue. People who distribute that
> > > build of Python would still be held by the LGPL -- such as
> >
> I see that Guido is not keen on the idea, and I'm not sure my
> observations help sway things one way or the other. OTOH, it would be
> nice if at least we always add our own identifier (initials, nick, email
> address) and a date to the XXX so we at least know who was talking about
> what.
I f
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Thomas Wouters writes:
>
> > Neither of those (shipping sources or dynamically linking to GMP) would
> > solve the LGPL issue. People who distribute that build of Python would
> still
> > be held by the LGPL -- such as shipping any sources that they embed that
> >
> Martin> On Windows, the GMP binaries would be incorporated into
> Martin> pythonxy.dll. This would force anybody providing a copy of
> Martin> pythonxy.dll to also provide the sources of GMP.
>
> As I understand it the proposal was to allow people to substitute GMP for
> Python's lo
Brett Cannon writes:
> I have yet to have met anyone who thinks git is great while having
> used another DVCS as extensively (and I mean I have never found
> someone who has used two DVCSs extensively).
When XEmacs was considering changing from CVS, I used Darcs as my
primary VCS for about 4 m
From: "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The right thing to do with XXX comments is to read them when you're in
their vicinity, and to act when the urge becomes too strong to deal
with any one in particular. Dealing with them en masse is just asking
for a migraine.
I concur.
Raymond
_
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>>
Gre
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 14:38, Gustavo Niemeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Both. First and foremost I am looking for any scenarios people are
>> using now for svn that I didn't cover. After that I can probably add
>> some DVCS-specific things. But the problem with that is my DVCS
>> experience is
[Gregory P. Smith]
>> One optimization that could be done to the existing Python longobject
>> code is to allow it to use larger digits. Currently it is hardcoded
>> to use 15bit digits.
>>
>> The most common desktop+server CPUs in the world (x86) all support
>> efficient 32bit*32bit -> 64bit mult
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 17:59, Stephen J. Turnbull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jesse Noller writes:
>
> > I don't see how git can be considered given poor windows support -
> > compilation on OS/X can be a bear too.
>
> I can't speak to the "poor Windows support", but I've been compiling
> both i
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> Grepping through Python's sources tells me that we have over 2,000
>>> "XXX" comments.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 14:58, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> As I said, one of the scenarios already says patches can be whatever
>> the DVCS supports the best; plain diffs, branches,
Jesse Noller writes:
> I don't see how git can be considered given poor windows support -
> compilation on OS/X can be a bear too.
I can't speak to the "poor Windows support", but I've been compiling
both in MacPorts (pretty much every MacPorts release, which is like
weekly) and from the kernel
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Curt Hagenlocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Antoine> I think it is important to remind that the GIL doesn't
>>>
Thomas Wouters writes:
> Neither of those (shipping sources or dynamically linking to GMP) would
> solve the LGPL issue. People who distribute that build of Python would still
> be held by the LGPL -- such as shipping any sources that they embed that
> Python into.
No, that's exactly what the
I posted this week ago, but haven't seen any comments. Issue
416670 is probably the most relevent ticket.
The buggy changeset I mention, 38430 on the release24-maint branch is
one that had been forward and back-ported for a while. I haven't found
the motivation for that change, but it hasn't been
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 01:37, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Benjamin> The main objection is that GMP is licensed under LGPL which I
>Benjamin> believe conflicts with Python's very open license.
>
>>> If GMP itself isn't included with Python how can there be a licensing
>>> issue?
>
Benjamin> The main objection is that GMP is licensed under LGPL which I
Benjamin> believe conflicts with Python's very open license.
>> If GMP itself isn't included with Python how can there be a licensing
>> issue?
Martin> On Windows, the GMP binaries would be incorporated i
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>> Grepping through Python's sources tells me that we have over 2,000
>> "XXX" comments. The thing that irks me about them is that the have a
>> very slow rate of being r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Grepping through Python's sources tells me that we have over 2,000
"XXX" comments. The thing that irks me about them is that the have a
very slow rate of being resolved, since they usually act mor
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grepping through Python's sources tells me that we have over 2,000
> "XXX" comments. The thing that irks me about them is that the have a
> very slow rate of being resolved, since they usually act more as
> "notes to sel
Grepping through Python's sources tells me that we have over 2,000
"XXX" comments. The thing that irks me about them is that the have a
very slow rate of being resolved, since they usually act more as
"notes to self" rather than easily attainable tasks.
So, I propose that we adopt a policy similar
> One optimization that could be done to the existing Python longobject
> code is to allow it to use larger digits. Currently it is hardcoded
> to use 15bit digits.
>
> The most common desktop+server CPUs in the world (x86) all support
> efficient 32bit*32bit -> 64bit multiply so there is no good
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:39 PM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
Here's a real-life Python example: http://bugs.python.org/issue2292. I
actually developed that in two separate branches, one depending on the
other: one branch for *just* the changes to functioncalls
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
As I said, one of the scenarios already says patches can be whatever
the DVCS supports the best; plain diffs, branches, etc. And the
comments for that scenario will point out any perks from that featur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
But then again, having one scenario that shows svn's weakness directly
wouldn't hurt. I could see a scenario where I start to fix something
in branch A, realize that a deeper issue needs to be fixed, l
> Both. First and foremost I am looking for any scenarios people are
> using now for svn that I didn't cover. After that I can probably add
> some DVCS-specific things. But the problem with that is my DVCS
> experience is limited and thus I don't want to add a scenario that
So try to listen to peo
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 22:56, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But then again, having one scenario that shows svn's weakness directly
> wouldn't hurt. I could see a scenario where I start to fix something
> in branch A, realize that a deeper issue needs to be fixed, leading to
> branch B,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
Exactly the same way 2.5, trunk and 3.0 are, yes.
Beauty, thanks.
- -Barry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSQ98J3EjvBPtnXfVAQLD0AQAhvDoJ85HtO0o/KxeU//kRjid7j0
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Victor Stinner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le Monday 03 November 2008 18:56:37 Paul Miller, vous avez écrit :
>> I've read some of the past discussion about including GMP into the
>> python core and understand the reasons for not doing so.
>
> Please, check
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 22:15, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
>
> FWIW, I put one up this weekend, and it seems to be intact and OK.
>> (bzr+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/python/2.6/ or
>> http://code.python.org/python/2.6/ )
>>
>
> Excellent
Brett Cannon wrote:
> But then again, having one scenario that shows svn's weakness directly
> wouldn't hurt. I could see a scenario where I start to fix something
> in branch A, realize that a deeper issue needs to be fixed, leading to
> branch B, and then have branch A depend on branch B. Is that
Martin added a new "stage" field in the tracker so that issues can now
be more clearly identified in terms of what is needed to move them
forward. For now it is probably best to continue to use both keywords
and stage values (i.e. the "patch" keyword is implied when the stage
of an issue goes beyon
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:57, Gustavo Niemeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Since I have never seen that come up during Python's development I am
>> going to leave it out. But I do see the benefit and how it might help
>> with future work.
>
> Of course, that's entirely up to you. But it strikes
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:35, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 18:57, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 17:08, Gustavo Niemeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Brett,
>> >
>> >> At this point I am looking for any suggest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Benjamin> The main objection is that GMP is licensed under LGPL which I
> Benjamin> believe conflicts with Python's very open license.
>
> If GMP itself isn't included with Python how can there be a licensing issue?
On Windows, the GMP binaries would be incorpo
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:19, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brett Cannon python.org> writes:
>>
>> At this point I am looking for any suggestions for fundamental usage
>> scenarios that I am missing from the PEP. If you think the few already
>> listed are missing some core part of a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
(No big deal
though). More importantly, there seem to be no images, e.g.:
http://code.python.org/static/images/ico_folder.gif
Looks like it should be
http://code.python.org/loggerhead/
>> (No big deal
>> though). More importantly, there seem to be no images, e.g.:
>
>>http://code.python.org/static/images/ico_folder.gif
>
>> Looks like it should be
>
>>http://code.python.org/loggerhead/static/images/ico_folder.gif
>
> I think Martin fixed these; at least I don't see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Thomas Wouters wrote:
FWIW, I put one up this weekend, and it seems to be intact and OK.
(bzr+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/python/2.6/ or http://code.python.org/python/2.6/
)
Excellent, thanks! This is getting mirrored
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 31, 2008, at 6:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin> I have now restored the original URL structure, and moved
the
Martin> loggerhead installation to
Martin> http://code.python.org/loggerhead/
A couple nits. Leaving off the
Benjamin> The main objection is that GMP is licensed under LGPL which I
Benjamin> believe conflicts with Python's very open license.
If GMP itself isn't included with Python how can there be a licensing issue?
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
2008/11/3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> I believe everyone here knows that. I believe what most people are
>>> clamoring for is to make "full use of their multi-CPU resources in a
>>> single process".
>
>Josiah> Which is, arguably, silly. As we've seen in the last 2 months
>Josi
>> I believe everyone here knows that. I believe what most people are
>> clamoring for is to make "full use of their multi-CPU resources in a
>> single process".
Josiah> Which is, arguably, silly. As we've seen in the last 2 months
Josiah> with Chrome, multiple processes for
Hi,
Le Monday 03 November 2008 18:56:37 Paul Miller, vous avez écrit :
> I've read some of the past discussion about including GMP into the
> python core and understand the reasons for not doing so.
Please, check this issue: http://bugs.python.org/issue1814
I patched Python3 to use GMP because I
> Since I have never seen that come up during Python's development I am
> going to leave it out. But I do see the benefit and how it might help
> with future work.
Of course, that's entirely up to you. But it strikes me as an odd
approach to the selection of scenarios for a tool whose intention i
2008/11/3 İsmail Dönmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 20:45, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>> I don't see how git can be considered given poor windows support -
>> compilation on OS/X can be a bear too.
I would say that strong support of all of Python's key platfo
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Paul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've read some of the past discussion about including GMP into the
> python core and understand the reasons for not doing so. Rather than
> that, what about patching Python's long implementation to use GMP if
> it's availabl
I've read some of the past discussion about including GMP into the
python core and understand the reasons for not doing so. Rather than
that, what about patching Python's long implementation to use GMP if
it's available, and the default implementation if not? Are there any
philosophical or techni
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Antoine> I think it is important to remind that the GIL doesn't prevent
>>Antoine> (almost) true multithreading. The only thing it prevents is
>>
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Eduardo O. Padoan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> :) But actually more interesting is whether we want to add p
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Antoine> I think it is important to remind that the GIL doesn't prevent
>Antoine> (almost) true multithreading. The only thing it prevents is
>Antoine> full use of multi-CPU resources in a single process.
>
> I believe every
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 20:45, Jesse Noller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I don't see how git can be considered given poor windows support -
> compilation on OS/X can be a bear too.
I use git on Linux/Mac/Windows day to day, see
http://code.google.com/p/git-osx-installer/
http://code.goo
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Nov 3, 2008, at 12:58 PM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
>
> -> Sticking with a dvcs implemented in Python makes the best sense,
>> -> especially when you consider the plugin a
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 09:58, C. Titus Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -> Sticking with a dvcs implemented in Python makes the best sense,
>> -> especially when you consider the plugin architecture. When we
>> -> selecte
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Eduardo O. Padoan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :) But actually more interesting is whether we want to add plugins that
>> assist Python dev workflow. For example, let's say we wanted to hav
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :) But actually more interesting is whether we want to add plugins that
> assist Python dev workflow. For example, let's say we wanted to have a
> 'fixes' command that automatically updated the Roundup tracker with the
> br
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Ralf Schmitt wrote:
I have used mercurial extensively (before having used git) and I think
git is great.
It gives you much more freedom to work with your source code than
mercurial.
Ralf, can you describe what you mea
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 18:57, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 17:08, Gustavo Niemeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Brett,
> >
> >> At this point I am looking for any suggestions for fundamental usage
> >> scenarios that I am missing from the PEP. If you thin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 12:58 PM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
-> Sticking with a dvcs implemented in Python makes the best sense,
-> especially when you consider the plugin architecture. When we
-> selected a new tracker, we didn't make implementation in Pyth
Brett Cannon python.org> writes:
>
> At this point I am looking for any suggestions for fundamental usage
> scenarios that I am missing from the PEP. If you think the few already
> listed are missing some core part of a VCS, please let me know.
You might want to refine the "patch review" scenari
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have yet to have met anyone who thinks git is great while having
> used another DVCS as extensively (and I mean I have never found
> someone who has used two DVCSs extensively).
I have used mercurial extensively (before ha
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 10:05:15AM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
-> I have yet to have met anyone who thinks git is great while having
-> used another DVCS as extensively (and I mean I have never found
-> someone who has used two DVCSs extensively).
git is great! I'm switching to it from darcs for a
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 09:57, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Brett,
>
> Brett Cannon python.org> writes:
>>
>> I have started the DVCS PEP which can be seen at
>> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg7fctr4_40dvjkdg64 . Not much is there
>> beyond the rationale, usage scenarios I plan
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 09:58, C. Titus Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -> Sticking with a dvcs implemented in Python makes the best sense,
> -> especially when you consider the plugin architecture. When we
> -> selected a new tracker, we didn't make implementation in Python a
> -> requirement,
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 19:03, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have started the DVCS PEP which can be seen at
>> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg7fctr4_40dvjkdg64 . Not much is there
>> beyond the rationale,
Hi Brett,
Brett Cannon python.org> writes:
>
> I have started the DVCS PEP which can be seen at
> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg7fctr4_40dvjkdg64 . Not much is there
> beyond the rationale, usage scenarios I plan to use, and what other
> sections I plan to write.
I'm not sure that's the kind
-> Sticking with a dvcs implemented in Python makes the best sense,
-> especially when you consider the plugin architecture. When we
-> selected a new tracker, we didn't make implementation in Python a
-> requirement, but instead a high hurdle. Meaning, if a tracker wasn't
-> written in P
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 17:08, Gustavo Niemeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Brett,
>
>> At this point I am looking for any suggestions for fundamental usage
>> scenarios that I am missing from the PEP. If you think the few already
>> listed are missing some core part of a VCS, please let me know
-> I would love to see the option to write the lower levels in something
-> other than C, but obviously any choice would have to be a good one.
-> Otherwise, we end up stuck or with lots of different languages all
-> being used and making understanding the full codebase harder. For
-> example, I've
>> - Option 1: distribute Cython with Python and integrate into build process
>> -- Ouch!
>
> Can you be a bit more descriptive?
Gerhard's elaboration (of us creating a fork of Cython then) is
convincing; there is also the issue of changes to the API to consider.
When we change the API now, we ha
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:25, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 03:50 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
>
> >I posted this yesterday about using bzr:
> >
> > >I'd like to try it out, but the instructions on
> > > http://www.pytho
As some of you know, I've provided a PyPI version of the 2.6/3.x "ssl"
module, for use with older versions of Python. I've received this request
to tweak it for Debian, and I thought I'd ask those of you who may have
already done it for advice on the various issues Cyril raises here. I'm not
Debi
>>> - Option 2: only distribute generated source files
>>> -- developers still need to have Cython installed
>>> -- you have to trust Cython; who will really review the generated code?
>>
>> Who reviews the machine code from gcc?
Gerhard> That's comparing apples and eggs :
Calvin Spealman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Gerhard Häring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stefan Behnel wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Moving more C extensions to an implementation based on ctypes would be
enormously useful for PyPy, IronPython and Jython, but ctypes is not yet
as portable
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Benjamin Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:04 AM, adrian golding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> hi all, i am trying to find out where is the part of the code in the python
>>> interpreter that opens up the .p
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Gerhard Häring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>
>> Michael Foord wrote:
>>>
>>> Moving more C extensions to an implementation based on ctypes would be
>>> enormously useful for PyPy, IronPython and Jython, but ctypes is not yet
>>> as portable as
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:04 AM, adrian golding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> hi all, i am trying to find out where is the part of the code in the python
>> interpreter that opens up the .py file and parses it. in particu
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:04 AM, adrian golding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi all, i am trying to find out where is the part of the code in the python
> interpreter that opens up the .py file and parses it. in particular, i am
> trying to find the file open command in that file. I greped and i ju
Stefan Behnel wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Moving more C extensions to an implementation based on ctypes would be
enormously useful for PyPy, IronPython and Jython, but ctypes is not yet
as portable as Python itself which could be an issue (although one worth
resolving).
In the same line, movin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 3, 2008, at 2:46 AM, Ralf Schmitt wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have started the DVCS PEP which can be seen at
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg7fctr4_40dvjkdg64 . Not much is there
beyond th
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 08:46 +0100, Ralf Schmitt wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have started the DVCS PEP which can be seen at
> > http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg7fctr4_40dvjkdg64 . Not much is there
> > beyond the rationale, usage scenarios
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Smith wrote:
>
>> I'd gladly trade deterministic destruction (due to reference counting or
>> any other mechanism) for improved performance.
>
> Another thing to consider is that refcounting spreads out the
> time spent do
83 matches
Mail list logo
