Hi pydev,
I was looking at the memory allocation strategy of dict, out of
curiosity, and noted that Objects/dictnotes.txt is out of date as far
as the parameters go. It says about PyDict_STARTSIZE:
* PyDict_STARTSIZE. Starting size of dict (unless an instance dict).
Currently set to 8.
I have reworked the patch, so it might be helpful to specify what exactly it is
that you object to. Perhaps in the defect itself.
I can add here that your worries that the previous patch defaulted to Vista
specific features, were actually unfounded.
I've added my reasons for including vista
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:47:28 +
Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com wrote:
I have reworked the patch, so it might be helpful to specify what exactly it
is that you object to. Perhaps in the defect itself.
I can add here that your worries that the previous patch defaulted to Vista
Eli Bendersky wrote:
Hi pydev,
I was looking at the memory allocation strategy of dict, out of
curiosity, and noted that Objects/dictnotes.txt is out of date as far
as the parameters go. It says about PyDict_STARTSIZE:
* PyDict_STARTSIZE. Starting size of dict (unless an instance dict).
I was looking at the memory allocation strategy of dict, out of
curiosity, and noted that Objects/dictnotes.txt is out of date as far
as the parameters go. It says about PyDict_STARTSIZE:
* PyDict_STARTSIZE. Starting size of dict (unless an instance dict).
Currently set to 8. Must
Am 04.06.2012 00:51, schrieb Martin v. Löwis:
That last statement basically suggests that something like regex would
never be accepted until a CPython core developer was actually running
into pain with the many flaws in the re module (especially when it comes
to Unicode). I disagree with
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
This does mean, though, that imp.cache_from_source() and
imp.source_from_cache() might need to be updated to raise a reasonable
exception when
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
http://bugs.python.org/**issue12982 http://bugs.python.org/issue12982
Currently, cpython requires the -O flag to *read* .pyo files as well as
the write them. This is a nuisance to people who receive them from others,
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:19:43 -0400, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
http://bugs.python.org/**issue12982 http://bugs.python.org/issue12982
Currently, cpython requires the -O flag to *read* .pyo files as well as
the
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 01:58:10PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
OK, but you didn't answer the question :). If I understand correctly,
everything you said applies to *writing* the bytecode, not reading it.
So, is there any reason to not use the .pyo file (if that's all that is
around)
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
http://bugs.python.org/__issue12982 http://bugs.python.org/issue12982
Currently, cpython requires the -O flag to *read* .pyo files as well
as the write them. This is a nuisance to people who receive them
from others,
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:20:24 -0700
Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 01:58:10PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
OK, but you didn't answer the question :). If I understand correctly,
everything you said applies to *writing* the bytecode, not reading it.
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 01:58:10PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
OK, but you didn't answer the question :). If I understand correctly,
everything you said applies to *writing* the bytecode, not reading it.
So, is there any reason to not use the .pyo file (if that's all
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:20:24 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 01:58:10PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
OK, but you didn't answer the question :). If I understand correctly,
everything you said applies to *writing* the bytecode, not reading it.
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:46:50 +0200, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:20:24 -0700
Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 01:58:10PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
OK, but you didn't answer the question :). If I understand
R. David Murray wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:46:50 +0200, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:20:24 -0700
Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 01:58:10PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
OK, but you didn't answer the question :). If I
On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
Did you mean to send this to the list, Raymond?
Yes. I wanted to find-out whether someone approved changing
all the dict tunable parameters. I thought those weren't supposed
to have changed. PEP 412 notes that the existing parameters
were
On 6/13/2012 2:46 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Not only docstrings, but also asserts. I think running a pyo without -O
would be a bug.
That cat is already out of the bag ;-)
People are doing that now by renaming x.pyo to x.pyc.
Brett claims that it is also easy to do in 3.3 with a custom
On 6/13/2012 1:19 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu
mailto:tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
http://bugs.python.org/__issue12982 http://bugs.python.org/issue12982
Currently, cpython requires the -O flag to *read* .pyo files as well
as the
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
Did you mean to send this to the list, Raymond?
Yes. I wanted to find-out whether someone approved changing
all the dict tunable parameters. I thought those weren't supposed
to have changed. PEP 412 notes that
On 11Jun2012 15:35, PJ Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
| Yes, perhaps if the list were *just* a place to cc: in or send a heads-up
| to python-dev discussions, and not to have actual list discussions per se,
| that would do the trick.
This approach has its own problems. Is the proposed list,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
To the contrary, without the POSIX timestamp model to define the
equivalency between the same point in time expressed using different
timezones, sane comparisons and arithmetic on timestamps would be
impossible.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 01:58:10PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
So, is there any reason to not use the .pyo file (if that's all that is
around) when -O is not specified?
.pyo and .pyc files have potentially different semantics. Right now,
.pyo files don't include asserts, so that's one
On Jun 13, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
I think that for combined tables a growth factor of x2 is best,
but I don't have any hard evidence to back that up.
I believe that change should be reverted.
You've undone work that was based on extensive testing and timings of many
python
Cameron Simpson writes:
This approach has its own problems. Is the proposed list, like many lists,
restricted to accept posts only from subscribers? If that is the case,
when someone CCs the VM list, everyone honouring the CC in replies needs
to be a VM list member if they are not to get
On Jun 13, 2012 8:31 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Cameron Simpson writes:
This approach has its own problems. Is the proposed list, like many
lists,
restricted to accept posts only from subscribers? If that is the case,
when someone CCs the VM list, everyone
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 6/13/2012 2:46 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Not only docstrings, but also asserts. I think running a pyo without -O
would be a bug.
That cat is already out of the bag ;-)
People are doing that now by renaming x.pyo to
On 6/13/2012 8:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 01:58:10PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
So, is there any reason to not use the .pyo file (if that's all that is
around) when -O is not specified?
.pyo and .pyc files have potentially different semantics. Right now,
.pyo
On 6/13/2012 9:15 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Jun 13, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Mark Shannon wrote:
I think that for combined tables a growth factor of x2 is best,
but I don't have any hard evidence to back that up.
I believe that change should be reverted.
You've undone work that was based on
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:48:08 +1000, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 6/13/2012 2:46 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Not only docstrings, but also asserts. I think running a pyo without -O
would be a bug.
That cat
Hello,
The new revision of PEP 362 has been posted:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362/
Summary:
1. Signature object now represents the call signature of a
function. That said, it doesn't have 'name' and 'qualname'
attributes anymore, and can be tested for equality against
other
On 2012-06-13, at 10:52 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
2. signature() function support all kinds of callables:
classes, metaclasses, methods, class- staticmethods,
'functools.partials', and callable objects. If a callable
object has a '__signature__' attribute it does a deepcopy
of it before
On 6/13/2012 10:47 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:48:08 +1000, Nick Coghlanncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but by resorting to either of those approaches, people are
clearly doing something that isn't formally supported by the core.
That was not clear to me until I read
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 03:13:54PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
Again, a program that depends on asserts is buggy.
As Ethan pointed out we are asking about the case where someone is
*deliberately* setting the .pyo file up to be run as the normal
case.
You can't be sure that the .pyo file
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 04:06:22PM -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 6/13/2012 2:46 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Not only docstrings, but also asserts. I think running a pyo without -O
would be a bug.
That cat is already out of the bag ;-)
People are doing that now by renaming x.pyo to x.pyc.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 09:54:30PM -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
So, no, we
You mean the interpreter?
Yes.
should never use
Do you mean import or execute?
Current, the interpreter executes any bytecode that gets imported.
Both.
.pyo files unless explicitly told to do so,
What
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 03:13:54PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
Again, a program that depends on asserts is buggy.
As Ethan pointed out we are asking about the case where someone is
*deliberately* setting the .pyo file up to be run as the normal
case.
You can't be
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-06-13, at 10:52 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
2. signature() function support all kinds of callables:
classes, metaclasses, methods, class- staticmethods,
'functools.partials', and callable objects. If a callable
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Yury Selivanov yseliva...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-06-13, at 10:52 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
2. signature() function support all kinds of callables:
classes, metaclasses, methods, class- staticmethods,
'functools.partials', and callable objects. If a callable
39 matches
Mail list logo
