Hello all,
in order to make reviewing PEP 576/580 easier and possibly take some
ideas from one PEP to the other, let me state the one fundamental
difference between these PEPs. There are many details in both PEPs that
can still change, so I'm focusing on what I think is the big structural
dif
I think both PEPs are relying on FASTCALL calling convention,
and can't be accepted until FASTCALL is stable & public.
There are enough time before Python 3.8 is released.
Let's go step by step.
Regards,
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> in order to make re
On 2018-07-04 03:31, INADA Naoki wrote:
I think both PEPs are relying on FASTCALL calling convention,
and can't be accepted until FASTCALL is stable & public.
First of all, the fact that FASTCALL has not been made public should
not prevent from discussing those PEPs and even making a
(provision
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 1:13 AM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2018-07-04 03:31, INADA Naoki wrote:
> > I think both PEPs are relying on FASTCALL calling convention,
> > and can't be accepted until FASTCALL is stable & public.
>
> First of all, the fact that FASTCALL has not been made public should
>
On 2018-07-05 05:41, INADA Naoki wrote:
And stabilizing calling convention is prerequirements of designing new
calling APIs.
I don't see why. I made my PEP with the assumption that the
METH_FASTCALL calling convention won't change. As far as I know, nobody
advocated for changing it. But even
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 6:31 PM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2018-07-05 05:41, INADA Naoki wrote:
> > And stabilizing calling convention is prerequirements of designing new
> > calling APIs.
>
> I don't see why. I made my PEP with the assumption that the
> METH_FASTCALL calling convention won't cha
On 2018-07-05 13:32, INADA Naoki wrote:
Core devs interested in this area is limited resource.
I know and unfortunately there is nothing that I can do about that. It
would be a pity that PEP 580 (or a variant like PEP 576) is not accepted
simply because no core developer cares enough.
As f
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:02 PM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2018-07-05 13:32, INADA Naoki wrote:
> > Core devs interested in this area is limited resource.
>
> I know and unfortunately there is nothing that I can do about that. It
> would be a pity that PEP 580 (or a variant like PEP 576) is not a
On 2018-07-05 14:20, INADA Naoki wrote:
What you can do is "divide and conquer". Split PEP in small topics we
can focus.
The PEP is already small and focused, I really did my best to make it as
minimal as possible. I don't see a meaningful way to split it up even
further.
__
Would it be possible to get outside experts to help? Like Cython or numpy
devs?
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:09 AM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2018-07-05 14:20, INADA Naoki wrote:
> > What you can do is "divide and conquer". Split PEP in small topics we
> > can focus.
>
> The PEP is already small an
On 2018-07-05 21:57, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Would it be possible to get outside experts to help?
I don't understand what you mean: to help with what? Designing the PEP?
Discussing the PEP? Accepting the PEP? Lobbying Python core devs?
The Cython developers (in particular Stefan Behnel) cert
On 2018-07-05 14:20, INADA Naoki wrote:
like you ignored my advice about creating realistic benchmark for
calling 3rd party callable before talking about performance...
I didn't really want to ignore that, I just didn't know what to do.
As far as I can tell, the official Python benchmark suite
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 7:50 PM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2018-07-05 14:20, INADA Naoki wrote:
> > like you ignored my advice about creating realistic benchmark for
> > calling 3rd party callable before talking about performance...
>
> I didn't really want to ignore that, I just didn't know what
On 07/05/18 13:59, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2018-07-05 13:32, INADA Naoki wrote:
Core devs interested in this area is limited resource.
I know and unfortunately there is nothing that I can do about that. It
would be a pity that PEP 580 (or a variant like PEP 576) is not accepted
simply becau
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:52 AM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2018-07-05 21:57, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Would it be possible to get outside experts to help?
>
> I don't understand what you mean: to help with what? Designing the PEP?
> Discussing the PEP? Accepting the PEP? Lobbying Python core de
On 2018-07-06 23:12, Guido van Rossum wrote:
It's your PEP. And you seem to be struggling with something. But I can't
tell quite what it is you're struggling with.
To be perfectly honest (no hard feelings though!): what I'm struggling
with is getting feedback (either positive or negative) from
Thanks, I will wait until there is a conclusion to the debate.
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:05 PM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2018-07-06 23:12, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > It's your PEP. And you seem to be struggling with something. But I can't
> > tell quite what it is you're struggling with.
>
> To
On 07/07/18 00:02, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2018-07-06 23:12, Guido van Rossum wrote:
It's your PEP. And you seem to be struggling with something. But I can't
tell quite what it is you're struggling with.
To be perfectly honest (no hard feelings though!): what I'm struggling
with is getting f
On 7 July 2018 at 07:12, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:52 AM Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> The Cython developers (in particular Stefan Behnel) certainly support my
>> work. I have talked with them in person at a workshop and they posted a
>> few emails to python-dev and they also
On 2018-07-07 14:54, Mark Shannon wrote:
There is a minimal implementation and has been for a while.
There is a link at the bottom of the PEP.
Yes, I saw that but the implementation does not correspond to the PEP.
In particular, this sentence from the PEP has not been implemented:
When bindi
20 matches
Mail list logo
