(*) slides:
http://www.interlink.com.au/anthony/tech/talks/OSCON2008/porting3.pdf
Hilarious! Seems like that would have been a riot of a session to attend.
(I'm kicking myself for attending some other uninteresting talk when yours was
on.)
Trent.
I'm planning on re-presenting it at the local google office in the
next couple of weeks. I might try and arrange for it to be recorded
and put online. At the moment we seem to have a real lack of concrete
information for people about the transition. If I had time (ha! HA!)
I'd try to turn the
Last time I looked at it, the C API wasn't nailed down yet. That's why
I passed over it entirely for my tutorial. The only advice I was able
to give was that if your extension is just a wrapper around existing C
code, you might be better off rewriting it using ctypes. That way it
should work on
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 22:20 +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Last time I looked at it, the C API wasn't nailed down yet. That's why
I passed over it entirely for my tutorial. The only advice I was able
to give was that if your extension is just a wrapper around existing C
code, you might be better
(*) slides:
http://www.interlink.com.au/anthony/tech/talks/OSCON2008/porting3.pdf
Trent Hilarious! Seems like that would have been a riot of a session
Trent to attend. (I'm kicking myself for attending some other
Trent uninteresting talk when yours was on.)
Indeed.
Le Wednesday 13 August 2008 15:27:42 Hrvoje Nikšić, vous avez écrit :
Given that ctypes doesn't work on a number of popular architectures,
including x86_64 (the last time I looked), I'd hardly call that better
off. :-(
I wrote a debugger based on ptrace using ctypes:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 21, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
But waiting until all the betas have gone out totally defeats the
purpose of the betas! It has already been stated that new code changes
that are even remotely shaky or anything not small needs a
I've added a setup.py to the python-incompatibilities projects code,
so adding c-extention modules should now be much easier. I don't do
much c-development myself, so I'm not the right person to do this, but
anybody that feels like adding C-extensions to this project is more
than welcome to do so.
On Jul 21, 2008, at 22:37, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 20:16, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But waiting until all the betas have gone out totally defeats the
purpose of the betas!
I agree. Writing an actual *guide* can wait, but documenting the
differences with
As a data point, I just presented a tutorial here at OSCON on Python 3
Porting, and had a number of people asking about C API changes. I
punted for my talk (*) because things are still in flux. Plus I only
had 3 hours. I did suggest that if your extension is just glue to a C
library, you should
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 20:16, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But waiting until all the betas have gone out totally defeats the
purpose of the betas!
I agree. Writing an actual *guide* can wait, but documenting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Barry Scott wrote:
| See http://code.google.com/p/python-incompatibility/source/checkout
Thanks.
I'm *VERY* interested in 2.6-3.0 migration guide for C module
extensions. 3.0 is around the corner and the API is changing almost
daily :-p.
- --
Jesus Cea schrieb:
Barry Scott wrote:
| See http://code.google.com/p/python-incompatibility/source/checkout
Thanks.
I'm *VERY* interested in 2.6-3.0 migration guide for C module
extensions. 3.0 is around the corner and the API is changing almost
daily :-p.
So it's good that nobody has
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:06, Jesus Cea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm *VERY* interested in 2.6-3.0 migration guide for C module
extensions. 3.0 is around the corner and the API is changing almost
daily :-p.
It would be great if python-incompatibility would have examples of the
C-api changes as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Georg Brandl wrote:
| So it's good that nobody has written a migration guide yet; he'd have
| to rewrite it daily.
Yes. I was delaying battling the 3.0 bsddb migration until RC to avoid
redoing the same work 15 times XDD
I'm not lazy, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
| On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:06, Jesus Cea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I'm *VERY* interested in 2.6-3.0 migration guide for C module
| extensions. 3.0 is around the corner and the API is changing almost
| daily :-p.
|
| It would
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:48, Jesus Cea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can comment about some issues I had this weekend.
I don't do C development myself, so comments aren't that useful for
me, but code examples are, so we can stick them into
python-incompatibility.
Remember that my intention is
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Jesus Cea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Georg Brandl wrote:
| So it's good that nobody has written a migration guide yet; he'd have
| to rewrite it daily.
Yes. I was delaying battling the 3.0 bsddb migration until RC
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Jesus Cea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Georg Brandl wrote:
| So it's good that nobody has written a migration guide yet; he'd have
| to
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 20:16, Brett Cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But waiting until all the betas have gone out totally defeats the
purpose of the betas!
I agree. Writing an actual *guide* can wait, but documenting the
differences with code examples is a work that can start now, and I
agree
See http://code.google.com/p/python-incompatibility/source/checkout
Barry
On Jul 19, 2008, at 03:25, Jesus Cea wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
| On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 6:25 AM, Jesus Cea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Since I need to port bsddb3 to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
| On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 6:25 AM, Jesus Cea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Since I need to port bsddb3 to py3k, what I need to know?. Is any
| *updated* document out there?.
|
| No, but there is a not yet complete, but quite
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 6:25 AM, Jesus Cea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I need to port bsddb3 to py3k, what I need to know?. Is any
*updated* document out there?.
No, but there is a not yet complete, but quite updated set of examples.
http://code.google.com/p/python-incompatibility/
This is
Of particular interest to bsddb is the pep3118 buffer API. I updated
the existing bsddb module found in the py3k branch to use it last
fall; you may want to use the changes made to it as an example.
I agree, a single C code base is the only sane way forward for bsddb.
The interesting part is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I can't find any PEP about detailed 2.6 - 3000 migration guidelines,
specially in the module (C code) extension area. Yes, I know about the
2to3 tool, but I'm interested in updating my 2.x code in order to keep
(automatic via 2to3) difference between
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Jesus Cea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I can't find any PEP about detailed 2.6 - 3000 migration guidelines,
specially in the module (C code) extension area. Yes, I know about the
2to3 tool, but I'm interested in
26 matches
Mail list logo
