On 11/03/2011 4.45, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:36 PM, ezio.melotti
python-check...@python.org wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/9adc4792db9a
changeset: 68356:9adc4792db9a
branch: 2.7
user:Ezio Melottiezio.melo...@gmail.com
date:Thu Mar 10
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 18:47, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
- Original Message
From: Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org
From what I understand, we're supposed to forward-port in Mercurial,
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2011-03-04 - 2011-03-11)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open2709 (+18)
closed 20540 (+53)
total 23249 (+71)
Open issues
One of the things brought up at the language summit (and I believe at the VM
summit, although I wasn't there) was the unpredictable behaviour of
callables turning into methods when they're class attributes. Specifically,
things that are CFunctions in CPython (builtin functions, which are not
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:15:07 +0100
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Actually, why not put up a web page of upcoming changes somewhere, that
lists major decisions with user impact that were taken on python-dev?
Including a link to the relevant discussion and decision. Often enough,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/11/2011 03:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:15:07 +0100
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Actually, why not put up a web page of upcoming changes somewhere, that
lists major decisions with user impact that were
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Tim Lesher wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 01:15, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Actually, why not put up a web page of upcoming changes somewhere, that
lists major decisions with
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:53:03 -0500
Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/11/2011 03:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:15:07 +0100
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Actually, why not put up a web page of
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:40:56 -0500
Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@gmail.com wrote:
The original request from the board was for the communications team to write
the messages, but I think it is more appropriate for the people doing the
work to talk about it. [...]
I asked Michael to add this
On Mar 11, 2011 4:52 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Tim Lesher wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 01:15, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de
wrote:
Actually, why not put up a
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:56:49 +0100
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:53:03 -0500
Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/11/2011 03:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:15:07 +0100
On 03/11/2011 06:03 PM, antoine.pitrou wrote:
If you want to try out or review a patch generated using Mercurial, do::
- hg import --no-commit somework.patch
+ patch -p1 somework.patch
This will apply the changes in your working copy without committing them.
If the patch was not
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Brian Curtin brian.cur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 11, 2011 4:52 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Tim Lesher wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011
Thomas Wouters wrote:
2. Make CFunctions turn into methods in CPython (after a period of
warning about the impending change, obviously.) The actual *usecase* for
this is hard to envision
While not necessary for the case being discussed here, this would
be a big help for Pyrex and Cython,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Thomas Wouters wrote:
2. Make CFunctions turn into methods in CPython (after a period of
warning about the impending change, obviously.) The actual *usecase* for
this is hard to envision
While not necessary for
On 11 March 2011 23:24, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I'm interested in the task and I guess I'll follow-up with Doug Hellman. I
don't follow -ideas close enough to summarize it, but I'd contribute to a
-dev blog.
Awesome! (And we don't need to stop at one blogger. Many hands make
Hello,
What is the purpose of SETUP_LOOP instruction? From a quick look it
seems like it just pushes the size of the loop into blocks stack; that
size is only used by BREAK_LOOP instruction.
BREAK_LOOP could just contain the target address directly, like
CONTINUE_LOOP does. This would avoid
Today, there was a significant check-in to the peephole optimizer that I think
should be reverted:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/14205d0fee45/
The peephole optimizer pre-dated the introduction of the abstract syntax tree.
Now that we have an AST, the preferred way to
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
Today, there was a significant check-in to the peephole optimizer that I
think should be reverted:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/14205d0fee45/
+1
I was going to comment on the corresponding
2011/3/11 Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com:
Today, there was a significant check-in to the peephole optimizer that I
think should be reverted:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/14205d0fee45/
The peephole optimizer pre-dated the introduction of the abstract syntax
Thomas Wouters wrote:
One of the things brought up at the language summit (and I believe at the VM
summit, although I wasn't there) was the unpredictable behaviour of
callables turning into methods when they're class attributes.
[...]
1. Make staticmethod a callable object directly (it isn't,
I recall several occasions where the peephole optimizer was subtly
buggy -- on one occasion the bug remained undetected for at least a
whole release cycle. (Sorry, I can't recall the details.) In fact, the
bug reported in http://bugs.python.org/issue11244 is another example
of how subtle the
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Thomas Wouters wrote:
One of the things brought up at the language summit (and I believe at the
VM
summit, although I wasn't there) was the unpredictable behaviour of
callables turning into methods when they're
Experience shows that optimizations are always error prone, no matter
what framework or internal representation you use. I don't think we
should assume that simply rewriting all optimizations to work on AST
will make them bug free once and for all. On the contrary, I think
such a rewrite will
On Mar 11, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Eugene Toder wrote:
Experience shows that optimizations are always error prone, no matter
what framework or internal representation you use.
On that basis, I believe that we ought to declare peephole.c as being
somewhat off-limits for further development (except
Experience shows that optimizations are always error prone, no matter
what framework or internal representation you use.
On that basis, I believe that we ought to declare peephole.c as being
somewhat off-limits for further development (except for small
adaptations if the underlying opcodes
2011/3/12 Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org
2011/3/11 Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com:
Today, there was a significant check-in to the peephole optimizer that I
think should be reverted:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/14205d0fee45/
The peephole optimizer
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
+1 on making staticmethods callable. I would have found that useful in the
past.
IIUC Thomas found that this breaks some current use of staticmethod.
From his first post, I understood the compatibility issue to more be
Guido van Rossum wrote:
+1 on making staticmethods callable. I would have found that useful in the
past.
IIUC Thomas found that this breaks some current use of staticmethod.
As I understand it, Thomas found that having staticmethod callable AND
have staticmethod.__get__ return self breaks
One note on the patch: it allocates an extra stack which is dynamically grown;
but there is no unittest to exercise the stack-growing code.
Isn't this doing it?
1.20 +# Long tuples should be folded too.
1.21 +asm = dis_single(repr(tuple(range(1
1.22 +# One
Cesare Di Mauro wrote:
Also, optimizations can be done not only for numbers, but even for tuples,
lists, dictionaries, and... slices (pag. 22). See pages 21-24 of
thishttp://wpython2.googlecode.com/files/Beyond%20Bytecode%20-%20A%20Wordcode-based%20Python.pdf
For the record, constant-folding,
The devguide's recommendation is to forward-port changes withing a major
release line, i.e. if I need something in all 3.[123], then start with 3.1
and forward-port (by hg merge branch) to 3.2 and then 3.3
Just to clarify - does this mean that all changesets that are applied to 3.2
eventually get
32 matches
Mail list logo
