On 3/19/2011 7:23 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Am 19.03.2011 23:51, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:49 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de
wrote:
I, for example, will find issues with it if the
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Scott Dial
scott+python-...@scottdial.com wrote:
Why would that be true? Shouldn't this launcher just be a basic wrapper
that cobbles together the arguments for an eventual os.exec*() call?
What is there to do other than to exec the correct interpreter with (a
On 3/19/2011 7:38 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
Thanks for the feedback!
And thanks for more complete explanations.
Sadly I was offline when writing my first response, and couldn't view
the man page for execve you referred to. Having just read it, I think
it would be total gibberish to a Windows
On 20/03/2011 6:22 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/19/2011 7:38 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
...
A Windows user who has only learned Python 2.x programming would not
necessarily have ever heard of execve, would not realize execve(2) means
it is from the 2nd chapter of the Unix man pages, meaning an
Hi
I have little knowledge of some Python (3.2) internals on objects' internal
structure handling.
Suppose that I have any PyLongObject object (even internal / shared ones)
and that
- I need to change some or all of its internal values (size, sign, digits)
in a critical section;
- the critical
On 3/20/2011 3:22 AM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/19/2011 7:38 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
[snip]
As both a writer and reader, I would like to just add, for instance,
#! python3
(or 3.3 or whatever) and have the launcher do the 'right thing'.
It seems to me that that really should be enough info
Out of curiosity, what is your objection to having the child process? I
guess it must be the system resources needed for the parent process
while it waits for the child to terminate so the exit code can be
reflected correctly up stream?
I see three problems with creating child processes:
-
Does it also support loading a different interpreter version than the
one it is running?
Ouch, no. I guess you're right, any Python based solution will need to
create a child process.
Why would that be true? Shouldn't this launcher just be a basic wrapper
that cobbles together the
Is it thread / interpreter safe or something dirty can happen?
It is safe, thanks to the global interpreter lock (a.k.a. GIL).
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
On 20/03/2011 8:36 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:22 AM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/19/2011 7:38 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
[snip]
As both a writer and reader, I would like to just add, for instance,
#! python3
(or 3.3 or whatever) and have the launcher do the 'right thing'.
If there
On 20/03/2011 8:37 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
...
... problems with creating child processes:
- applications using the debug API, PSAPI, etc. will be confused if
the action all happens in a child process. I can accept that they
have to adjust, though.
Some of these uses probably
Le dimanche 20 mars 2011 à 00:06 -0400, R. David Murray a écrit :
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:33:00 +0100, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:24:26 -0400
R. David Murray rdmurray at bitdance.com wrote:
It would be great if rebase did work with share, that would make a
push race basically a
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu writes:
As both a writer and reader, I would like to just add, for instance,
#! python3
(or 3.3 or whatever) and have the launcher do the 'right thing'. It
seems to me that that really should be enough info for *nix,
For clarity: the reason it's not enough
Nick Coghlan, 12.03.2011 12:43:
I posted my rough notes and additional write-ups for Wednesday's VM
summit and Thursday's language summit:
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-rough-notes.html
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Nick Coghlan, 12.03.2011 12:43:
I posted my rough notes and additional write-ups for Wednesday's VM
summit and Thursday's language summit:
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2011/03/python-vm-summit-rough-notes.html
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:32:34 -0400
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
The reason why there was no mention is probably because no one
intimately familiar with Cython was there, and if they were - it was
not brought up. If Cython supports PyPy - and Jython, and IronPython,
your proposal
Jesse Noller, 20.03.2011 12:32:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
It appears that there has been little mention of Cython at the summit,
despite of the speed of CPython being a major topic, according to the notes.
I can see several areas where Cython could help in speeding
Antoine Pitrou, 20.03.2011 12:40:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:32:34 -0400 Jesse Noller wrote:
The reason why there was no mention is probably because no one
intimately familiar with Cython was there, and if they were - it was
not brought up. If Cython supports PyPy - and Jython, and IronPython,
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:32:34 -0400
Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
The reason why there was no mention is probably because no one
intimately familiar with Cython was there, and if they were - it was
not brought
...snip
IMHO, taking modules that currently only have a C implementation due to
performance constraints and rewriting them in Cython is a much more
worthwhile thing to do than adding an alternative pure Python implementation
that other Python runtimes wouldn't use anyway. And at least
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I see three problems with creating child processes:
- WaitForSingleObject and GetExitProcessCode must work correctly. I
think this is possible to achieve
- applications using the debug API, PSAPI, etc. will be confused
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19/03/11 19:59, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
I think if we're going to require a complex workflow, then we're
going to have to expect a lot of questions. And those questions
shouldn't be brushed-off with go read the tutorial, we have no time
for
Jesse Noller, 20.03.2011 13:51:
...snip
IMHO, taking modules that currently only have a C implementation due to
performance constraints and rewriting them in Cython is a much more
worthwhile thing to do than adding an alternative pure Python implementation
that other Python runtimes wouldn't
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Jesse Noller, 20.03.2011 13:51:
...snip
IMHO, taking modules that currently only have a C implementation due to
performance constraints and rewriting them in Cython is a much more
worthwhile thing to do than adding an
On 20 March 2011 09:58, Mark Hammond skippy.hamm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/03/2011 8:36 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:22 AM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/19/2011 7:38 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
[snip]
As both a writer and reader, I would like to just add, for instance,
#! python3
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:17:25 +0100, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Le dimanche 20 mars 2011 à 00:06 -0400, R. David Murray a écrit :
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:33:00 +0100, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:24:26 -0400
R. David Murray rdmurray at bitdance.com wrote:
It would
Le dimanche 20 mars 2011 à 11:52 -0400, R. David Murray a écrit :
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:06:01 -0400, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com
wrote:
It would have been nice if rebase had refused to run given that
there were merges, since it clearly doesn't work in that case.
To clarify,
Hi Stefan,
I'm glad to see Cython picking up steam and trying to compete with
CPython, PyPy, and possibly others. It's true that few in the core
development group know much about Cython -- essentially my own
understanding is still that it's like Pyrex, which was a
mostly-Python-compatible syntax
What is rebase? Why does everyone want it and hate it at the same time?
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:10:02 -0500, s...@pobox.com wrote:
I pushed two changes to cpython yesterday and today. I don't know how to
merge them to the 2.7 and 3.2 branches, and don't want to even try for
fear of screwing something up. If what I read in python-dev yesterday is
correct, I
On 20.03.2011 16:21, Guido van Rossum wrote:
What is rebase? Why does everyone want it and hate it at the same time?
Basically, rebase is a way to avoid having pointless merge commits on the
same branch.
Let's say you have the following history in your local repository:
... --- X --- A --- B
On 20.03.2011 16:39, Georg Brandl wrote:
The reason why rebasing is not universally applied is that the
rebased changesets are different from the original ones (therefore
I wrote A' and B') -- even if the diff is the same, the parents
are not, and therefore the changeset id (hash) changes.
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:39:50 -, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
The reason why rebasing is not universally applied is that the
rebased changesets are different from the original ones (therefore
I wrote A' and B') -- even if the diff is the same, the parents
are not, and therefore the
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 17:39, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
The reason why rebasing is not universally applied is that the
rebased changesets are different from the original ones (therefore
I wrote A' and B') -- even if the diff is the same, the parents
are not, and therefore the
On 20.03.2011 16:50, Thomas Wouters wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 17:39, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net
mailto:g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
The reason why rebasing is not universally applied is that the
rebased changesets are different from the original ones (therefore
I wrote A'
On 3/20/2011 10:51 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:39:20 +0100
Stefan Behnelstefan...@behnel.de wrote:
If anyone knows about a good benchmark for a currently pure Python standard
library module, preferably a smaller, self-contained one that's somewhat
computationally
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 17:59, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
On 20.03.2011 16:50, Thomas Wouters wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 17:39, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net
mailto:g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
The reason why rebasing is not universally applied is that the
rebased
Antoine Pitrou, 20.03.2011 15:51:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:39:20 +0100, Stefan Behnel wrote:
If anyone knows about a good benchmark for a currently pure Python standard
library module, preferably a smaller, self-contained one that's somewhat
computationally intensive, I'd be happy to hear about
Before Mark wrote up this pep I had started experimenting with how to
make the launcher and I was able to get it to launch python while
exiting py.exe and as far as I could tell it behaved just as if I had
launched the app directly by double clicking it.
In this code, py.exe terminates way
Ben Ned Deily n...@acm.org writes:
As a side note, if you are prone to accidentally adding extra
whitespace (like I am), you can add the whitespace check hook into
your local copy of Mercurial so that you will be warned about
whitespace problems immediately when you commit
On 20.03.2011 18:05, s...@pobox.com wrote:
Ben Ned Deily n...@acm.org writes:
As a side note, if you are prone to accidentally adding extra
whitespace (like I am), you can add the whitespace check hook into
your local copy of Mercurial so that you will be warned about
On 20/03/2011 09:58, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 20/03/2011 8:36 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:22 AM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/19/2011 7:38 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
[snip]
As both a writer and reader, I would like to just add, for instance,
#! python3
(or 3.3 or whatever) and have the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/20/2011 5:06 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:33:00 +0100, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:24:26 -0400
R. David Murray rdmurray at bitdance.com wrote:
It would be great if rebase did work with share, that would make a
push
What you felt like doing after doing the rest;-?
I believe your question and its answers have helped me understand hg
better for when I dive in. Thanks.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Jesus Cea writes:
I think we are doing some antipatterns with our current approach,
battling the tools instead of joining them.
Yes. That is deliberate; see PEP 0374. I admit I personally didn't
foresee the issues Nick describes with the flow of patches from one
branch to another. Also,
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 03:44:34 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org
wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that those who say that Mercurial
documentation should be found at the Mercurial project are wrong. I
+1. I think the dev docs should explain anything needed to do the
basic Python
Stephen Subversion merges create new versions in the repository that
Stephen *never existed in any developer's workspace* and therefore was
Stephen never tested before committing. This is somewhat mitigated by
Stephen buildbot testing, but that is mostly unit testing and
Terry What you felt like doing after doing the rest;-?
I still f*cked everything up. R. David Murray came to my rescue. Even he
muffed it and had to backtrack I think, at least based on one of the
comments I saw on one of the involved tracker issues.
Skip
[warning, long post ahead]
Guido van Rossum, 20.03.2011 17:17:
Hi Stefan,
Hi!
I'm glad to see Cython picking up steam and trying to compete with
CPython, PyPy, and possibly others.
We do, although our main focus is much more on targeted manual optimisation
rather than whole applications.
On 21 March 2011 04:32, Thomas Wouters tho...@python.org wrote:
Merging and merge changesets are a fact of DVCSes, and while I (as a grumpy
luddite misanthrope) greatly prefer the automatic (and mostly silent) merge
as BitKeeper does it, in the long run the actual merging and the merge
Thomas Wouters writes:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 17:59, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
On 20.03.2011 16:50, Thomas Wouters wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 17:39, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net
mailto:g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
The reason why rebasing is not universally
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Well, YMMV. But instead of spreading FUD you might want to state *why*.
David isn't the only one this kind of thing blew up on during the
sprints (although in my case, it may have been hg rollback rather
than rebasing).
Following up myself here...
On 20/03/2011 9:25 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 20/03/2011 8:37 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
...
Some of these uses probably shouldn't use the launcher directly - eg,
ISAPI apps and COM objects which have a separate registration step could
register a specific python.exe -
On 20/03/2011 11:56 PM, Dj Gilcrease wrote:
...
Before Mark wrote up this pep I had started experimenting with how to
make the launcher and I was able to get it to launch python while
exiting py.exe and as far as I could tell it behaved just as if I had
launched the app directly by double
On 20.03.2011 18:32, Thomas Wouters wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 17:59, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net
mailto:g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
On 20.03.2011 16:50, Thomas Wouters wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 17:39, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net
mailto:g.bra...@gmx.net
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
So if somebody would launch a python script with py.exe, they would
think it was completed even though it would still be running.
Yes py.exe exits way before the python script, but the console stays
open, though now that
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 05:36 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:22 AM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/19/2011 7:38 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
[snip]
As both a writer and reader, I would like to just add, for instance,
#! python3
(or 3.3 or whatever) and have the launcher do the 'right
The above raises an interesting question - if the launcher executed
Python in-process, what would sys.executable be? I can imagine there
are few scenarios where it would be desirable to have it refer to the
launcher and a number of scenarios where it would be undesirable and
possibly break
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:35:02 -0700, Westley =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mart=EDnez?=
aniko...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 05:36 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:22 AM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 3/19/2011 7:38 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
[snip]
As both a writer and reader, I would
Mark Hammond wrote:
The above raises an interesting question - if the launcher executed
Python in-process, what would sys.executable be?
I think it should be the actual Python executing at that
moment, not the launcher. This is the least change from
current behaviour and therefore least
On 21/03/2011 10:32 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The above raises an interesting question - if the launcher executed
Python in-process, what would sys.executable be? I can imagine there
are few scenarios where it would be desirable to have it refer to the
launcher and a number of scenarios where
#! python3
[...]
That would break the whole point of platform-independence.
a) the PEP makes no point about platform-independence.
it is a pure Windows thing, and has no stated objective
to being platform-independent. So loss of platform-independence
may not be deliberate, but is
Am 21.03.2011 00:52, schrieb Mark Hammond:
On 21/03/2011 10:32 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The above raises an interesting question - if the launcher executed
Python in-process, what would sys.executable be? I can imagine there
are few scenarios where it would be desirable to have it refer to
On 21 March 2011 08:16, Tim Delaney timothy.c.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
For the second and later merges:
hg update 1234_merged_with_3.2
hg merge 3.2
hg commit -m Merged 3.2 to 1234_merged_with_3.2
hg merge 1234
hg commit -m Merged 1234 to 1234_merged_with_3.2
Of course, you should
Am 21.03.2011 00:43, schrieb Greg Ewing:
Mark Hammond wrote:
The above raises an interesting question - if the launcher executed
Python in-process, what would sys.executable be?
I think it should be the actual Python executing at that
moment, not the launcher. This is the least change
Mark Hammond wrote:
In addition to Martin's point, this approach would mean the exit code of
the child process probably isn't available to whoever started the
launcher.
Maybe I've missed something in this discussion, but is there
any reason the launcher can't just exec the relevant python?
On 21/03/2011 11:10 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Am 21.03.2011 00:52, schrieb Mark Hammond:
On 21/03/2011 10:32 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The above raises an interesting question - if the launcher executed
Python in-process, what would sys.executable be? I can imagine there
are few scenarios
In addition to Martin's point, this approach would mean the exit code
of the child process probably isn't available to whoever started the
launcher.
Maybe I've missed something in this discussion, but is there
any reason the launcher can't just exec the relevant python?
Windows doesn't
On 3/20/2011 6:35 PM, Westley Martínez wrote:
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 05:36 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
As both a writer and reader, I would like to just add, for instance,
#! python3
(or 3.3 or whatever) and have the launcher do the 'right thing'.
It seems to me that that really should be
On 21/03/2011 11:15 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Am 21.03.2011 00:43, schrieb Greg Ewing:
Mark Hammond wrote:
The above raises an interesting question - if the launcher executed
Python in-process, what would sys.executable be?
I think it should be the actual Python executing at that
moment,
I remain -1 on any proposal that uses subprocesses. It absolutely must
be the launcher that is running Python. In fact, I'd call it
python.exe.
For clarity, could you please tell us which scenarios you have in mind
that cause you to take that position, and why those scenarios couldn't
On 21/03/2011 12:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I remain -1 on any proposal that uses subprocesses. It absolutely must
be the launcher that is running Python. In fact, I'd call it
python.exe.
For clarity, could you please tell us which scenarios you have in mind
that cause you to take that
I personally would conclude that the last option is the least worst
scenario by a wide margin.
Ok, I let this rest. Can you please add a summary of this discussion to
the PEP? (also, can you please check in the PEP, and give it a number?)
Thanks,
Martin
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I'm primarily bothered about the failure to implement TerminateProcess
correctly. I don't actually know what use cases would be affected, other
then saying that anything launching py.exe could be affect, in
particular
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:40 PM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 03:44:34 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull
step...@xemacs.org wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that those who say that Mercurial
documentation should be found at the Mercurial project are wrong. I
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
[warning, long post ahead]
[all snipped]
Thanks for the clarifications. I now have a much better understanding
of what Cython is. But I'm not sold. For one, your attitude about
strict language compatibility worries me when
I have been avoiding hg import because my understanding is that it
defaults to commit, and I don't see that it has any advantage over patch
itself.
“hg import” understands the extended diff format, which patch does not.
(That format has been described a number of times already, see
Le 20/03/2011 02:59, Ned Deily a écrit :
On a Unix-y system, here is one way to do it (no warranty on the
installation instructions!):
With all due respect, the instructions are overly complicated, and may
also run afoul of the system conventions (sudo will put files in
directories that should
Since Python 2.5, we maintain two versions of PyArg_ParseTuple:
one outputting int; the other one outputting Py_ssize_t.
The former should have been removed in 3.0, but this was forgotten.
Still, I would like people to move over to the new version, so
that extension modules will typically
In article 4d86be29.8070...@netwok.org,
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
Le 20/03/2011 02:59, Ned Deily a écrit :
On a Unix-y system, here is one way to do it (no warranty on the
installation instructions!):
With all due respect, the instructions are overly complicated, and may
also
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Windows doesn't support exec.
Hmmm. In that case, if the launcher works by loading a pythonXY.dll,
I'd say that sys.executable should point to whatever version of
python.exe corresponds to that dll.
Generally, things should be made to look as much as possible as
if
s...@pobox.com writes:
Stephen interactions across modules. That is, it's not that Subversion
Stephen provided a simpler way of doing the work. Rather, it hid the
Stephen fact that certain work was not being done at all. hg exposes
Stephen this fact.
Can you provide
On 21/03/2011 3:50 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Windows doesn't support exec.
Hmmm. In that case, if the launcher works by loading a pythonXY.dll,
I'd say that sys.executable should point to whatever version of
python.exe corresponds to that dll.
Generally, things should be
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Cython feels much less
mature than CPython; but the latter should only have dependencies that
themselves change even slower than CPython.
You might be slightly more amenable to Pyrex, then, which
changes at a much more conservative pace!
They appear superficially
84 matches
Mail list logo
