On 13 December 2016 at 02:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> It absolutely *is* relevant, as is how diligent the redistributors are
>> in differentiating between the unmodified upstream project and the
>> patches we have applied post-release (rath
> On Dec 12, 2016, at 8:12 AM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>
> The heapify() algorithm is well known and well studied. A quick Google
> search turns up plenty of explanations:
> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=complexity%20of%20heapify
>
>
> al
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> It absolutely *is* relevant, as is how diligent the redistributors are
> in differentiating between the unmodified upstream project and the
> patches we have applied post-release (rather than just posting the end
> result without a clear audi
> On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Rafael Almeida wrote:
>
> From what I gather, _siftup(heap, pos) does not run in constant time, but
> rather it runs in time proportional to the height of the subtree with root in
> ``pos''. Although, according to the in-code comments, it should be faster
> than
Hello,
Current heapify documentation says it takes linear time
https://docs.python.org/3/library/heapq.html#heapq.heapify
However, investigating the code (Python 3.5.2) I saw this:
def heapify(x):
"""Transform list into a heap, in-place, in O(len(x)) time."""
n = len(x)
I am not sure, but soon, I will be a great fan of your work, once I get to
work on this!
Thank your for inspiring me to work on these stuff!
Best regards,
Annapoornima
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> 2016-12-09 18:46 GMT+01:00 Victor Stinner :
> > Last days, I patched
On 12 December 2016 at 19:10, Wes Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
> wrote:
>> Exactly how lenient an open source project can be with naming of
>> forks, I don't know. I would hope that courts would not look amiss at
>> the common practice of letting distros t
~ Just upgrade to Python 3.6 and forget about this non~sense! ~
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 03:10:09AM -0600, Wes Turner wrote:
> > [Continuing to play devil's advocate for the sake of clarification]
>
> Clarification of *what* exactly? You d
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 03:10:09AM -0600, Wes Turner wrote:
> [Continuing to play devil's advocate for the sake of clarification]
Clarification of *what* exactly? You don't seem to be asking any
questions, just making statements.
If you have a concrete, specific question, please ask it. If its a
[Continuing to play devil's advocate for the sake of clarification]
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Wes Turner writes:
>
> > So forks with modules added or removed cannot be called Python?
> > Forks without the blessing of the PSF cannot be called Python?
> > Tha
Wes Turner writes:
> So forks with modules added or removed cannot be called Python?
> Forks without the blessing of the PSF cannot be called Python?
> That's really not open source.
Of course it is. The source is open and free.
But that's not what is in play here. The legal theory is tha
11 matches
Mail list logo
