Re: [Python-Dev] cpython: News item for #12724

Am 11.08.2011 03:34, schrieb brian.curtin: > http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3a6782f2a4a8 > changeset: 71811:3a6782f2a4a8 > user:Brian Curtin > date:Wed Aug 10 20:32:10 2011 -0500 > summary: > News item for #12724 > > files: > Misc/NEWS | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insert

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython (2.7): Fix closes Issue12722 - link heapq source in the text format in the

On Aug 10, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > we would have to update all the links manually to link to h.p.o instead of > s.p.o. sed is your friend. Raymond ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/list

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython (2.7): Fix closes Issue12722 - link heapq source in the text format in the

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:58:24PM +0300, Ezio Melotti wrote: > > hg.python.org/cpython/2.7/path/to/file.py should work just fine. The correct path seems to be: http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/2.7/Lib/ > > IIRC the reason why we don't do it on 2.x is because we don't have > the 'source' direc

Re: [Python-Dev] Moving forward with the concurrent package

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin wrote: >> Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for multiprocessing >> to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move things in the future >> [0], which would be now. > >

Re: [Python-Dev] Moving forward with the concurrent package

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin wrote: > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for multiprocessing > to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move things in the future > [0], which would be now. As Jesse said, moving multiprocessing or threading wholesale

Re: [Python-Dev] Moving forward with the concurrent package

2011/8/10 Raymond Hettinger : > > On Aug 10, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500, >> Benjamin Peterson a écrit : >>> 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin : Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 me

Re: [Python-Dev] Moving forward with the concurrent package

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Brian Curtin wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 15:36, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >> Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500, >> Benjamin Peterson a écrit : >> > 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin : >> > > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for >> > > multiprocess

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython (2.7): Fix closes Issue12722 - link heapq source in the text format in the

On 11/08/2011 0.02, Sandro Tosi wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 21:55, Terry Reedy wrote: Latest version of the `heapq Python source code -`_ +

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython (2.7): Fix closes Issue12722 - link heapq source in the text format in the

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 21:55, Terry Reedy wrote: > >> >>     Latest version of the `heapq Python source code >> >> -`_ >> >> +

Re: [Python-Dev] Moving forward with the concurrent package

On Aug 10, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500, > Benjamin Peterson a écrit : >> 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin : >>> Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for >>> multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move >>> things

Re: [Python-Dev] Moving forward with the concurrent package

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 15:36, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500, > Benjamin Peterson a écrit : > > 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin : > > > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for > > > multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move > >

Re: [Python-Dev] Moving forward with the concurrent package

Le Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:33 -0500, Benjamin Peterson a écrit : > 2011/8/10 Brian Curtin : > > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for > > multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move > > things in the future > > Is there some sort of concrete proposa

Re: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > > On Aug 10, 2011, at 4:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > After implementing the aforementioned step 5, you will find that the > performance of everything, including the threaded code, will be quite a bit > worse.  Frankly, this is probably

Re: [Python-Dev] Moving forward with the concurrent package

2011/8/10 Brian Curtin : > Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for multiprocessing > to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move things in the future Is there some sort of concrete proposal? The PEP just seems to mention it as an idea. In general, -1. I think we don

[Python-Dev] Moving forward with the concurrent package

Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move things in the future [0], which would be now. [0] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3148/#naming ___ Python-Dev mailing li

Re: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question

On Aug 10, 2011, at 4:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> After implementing the aforementioned step 5, you will find that the >> performance of everything, including the threaded code, will be quite a bit >> worse. Frankly, this is probably the most significant obstacle to have any >> kind of GIL-

Re: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Brian Curtin wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:14, Vlad Riscutia wrote: >> >> Removing GIL is interesting work and probably multiple people are willing >> to contribute. Threading and synchronization is a deep topic and it might be >> that if just one person to

Re: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:14, Vlad Riscutia wrote: > Removing GIL is interesting work and probably multiple people are willing > to contribute. Threading and synchronization is a deep topic and it might be > that if just one person toys around with removing GIL he might not see > performance imp

Re: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question

Removing GIL is interesting work and probably multiple people are willing to contribute. Threading and synchronization is a deep topic and it might be that if just one person toys around with removing GIL he might not see performance improvement (not meaning to offend anyone who tried this, honestl

Re: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:32 AM, David Beazley wrote: >> >> On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:09 PM, David Beazley wrote: You're forgetting step 5. 5. Put fine-grain locks ar

Re: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:32 AM, David Beazley wrote: > > On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:09 PM, David Beazley wrote: >>> You're forgetting step 5. >>> >>> 5. Put fine-grain locks around all reference counting operations (or >>> rewrite all of Pyth

Re: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:32 PM, David Beazley wrote: > On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> PyPy would actually make a significantly better basis for this kind of >> experimentation, since they *don't* use reference counting for their >> memory management. > > That's an experiment

Re: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question

On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:09 PM, David Beazley wrote: >> You're forgetting step 5. >> >> 5. Put fine-grain locks around all reference counting operations (or rewrite >> all of Python's memory management and garbage collection from scratch). >

Re: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:09 PM, David Beazley wrote: > You're forgetting step 5. > > 5. Put fine-grain locks around all reference counting operations (or rewrite > all of Python's memory management and garbage collection from scratch). ... > After implementing the aforementioned step 5, you will

Re: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question

> > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:31:47 +0600 > From: ? > To: python-dev@python.org > Subject: [Python-Dev] GIL removal question > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Probably I want to re-invent a bicycle. I want developers to say me > why we