Greg Ewing wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
A further data point is that modern machines seem to give timing
variabilities due to CPU temperature variations even if you always eat
exactly the same thing.
Oh, great. Now we're going to have to run our
benchmarks in a temperature-controlled
On Thursday 15 February 2007 21:48, Steve Holden wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
A further data point is that modern machines seem to give
timing variabilities due to CPU temperature variations even if
you always eat exactly the same thing.
Oh, great. Now we're going to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 15, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
On Thursday 15 February 2007 21:48, Steve Holden wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
A further data point is that modern machines seem to give
timing variabilities due to CPU
Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 15, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
On Thursday 15 February 2007 21:48, Steve Holden wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
A further data point is that modern machines seem to give
timing
Steve Holden wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 15, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
On Thursday 15 February 2007 21:48, Steve Holden wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
A further data point is that modern machines seem to give
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really, really wish that every feature proposal for Python had
to meet
some burden of proof
Ben North wrote:
This is what I understood the initial posting to python-ideas to be
about.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm suggesting that the standards of the
Anthony Baxter wrote:
Unless the fans are perfectly balanced, small changes in gravity are
going to affect the rate at which they spin. So I guess the
position of the moon will affect it :-)
A standard gravitational field could also be important
to eliminate relativistic effects.
So we
Guido van Rossum wrote:
This seems to be the overwhelming feedback at this point, so I'm
withdrawing my support for the proposal. I hope that Ben can write up
a PEP and mark it rejected, to summarize the discussion; it's been a
useful lesson.
The feedback is clear, yes. The new syntax seems
Ben North wrote:
[...]
Guido van Rossum wrote:
I missed discussion of the source of the 1%. Does it slow down pystone
or other benchmarks by 1%? That would be really odd, since I can't
imagine that the code path changes in any way for code that doesn't
use the feature. Is it that the ceval
Steve Holden schrieb:
Ben North wrote:
[...]
Guido van Rossum wrote:
I missed discussion of the source of the 1%. Does it slow down pystone
or other benchmarks by 1%? That would be really odd, since I can't
imagine that the code path changes in any way for code that doesn't
use the feature.
On 01:04 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I really, really wish that every feature proposal for Python had to meet
some burden of proof [...]. I suspect this would kill 90% of hey
wouldn't this syntax be neat proposals on day zero [...]
This is what I understood the initial
Steve Holden wrote:
A further data point is that modern machines seem to give timing
variabilities due to CPU temperature variations even if you always eat
exactly the same thing.
Oh, great. Now we're going to have to run our
benchmarks in a temperature-controlled oven...
--
Greg
On 2/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I was trying to say there is that the proposal of new ideas should not
begin with Hey, I think this might be 'good' - that's too ill defined. It
should be, I noticed (myself/my users/my students/other open source
projects) writing
13 matches
Mail list logo
