I just wrote a new C API function (PyItem_GetItem) that supports slicing for
arbitrary iterators. A patch for current CVS is at http://www.python.org/sf/1108272
For simple indices it does the iteration manually, and for extended slices it
returns an itertools.islice object.
As a trivial
[Evan Jones] :
--
2. Every N memory operations (or some other measurement of time),
reset this value and calculate a moving average of the number of pages.
This estimates the current memory requirements of the application.
The challenge is how to determine a good measurement of
I just wrote a new C API function (PyItem_GetItem) that supports slicing for
arbitrary iterators. A patch for current CVS is at
http://www.python.org/sf/1108272
For simple indices it does the iteration manually, and for extended slices it
returns an itertools.islice object.
As a trivial
Here my comments, from more general to more subtle:
- please don't post patches here; post them to SF
You may ask for comments here after you posted them to SF.
- please follow Python coding style. In particular, don't write
if ( available_arenas == NULL ) {
but write
if
Neal Norwitz wrote:
Where are the Py_DECREFs done for the function arguments?
The original code path still handles the Py_DECREFs.
This is the while loop at the end of call_function().
Can you please elaborate? For METH_O and METH_ARGS,
the arguments have already been popped off the stack,
and
On Jan 24, 2005, at 18:16, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
- please don't post patches here; post them to SF
You may ask for comments here after you posted them to SF.
Sure. This should be done even for patches which should absolutely not
be committed?
- please follow Python coding style. In
Neal Norwitz wrote:
EXT_POP() modifies stack_pointer on the stack. In call_function(),
stack_pointer is PyObject ***. But in new_fast_function(), stack_pointer
is only PyObject **. So the modifications by EXT_POP to stack_pointer
(moving it down) are lost in new_fast_function().
Thanks - that
Dear python-dev:
The current (as of even date) summary of my recent contributions to
Python -dev appears to be spam about PyCon.
Not being one to break habits, even not those of a lifetime sometimes, I
spam you yet again to show you what a beautiful summary ActiveState have
provided (I don't
Steve Holden wrote:
[some things followed by]
If I remember Trent Lott (?) described at an IPC the SQL Server database
that drives this system, and it was a great example of open source
technology driving a proprietary (but I expect (?) relatively portable)
repository.
Please forgive me for
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Browse/ByAuthor/python-dev?author=cHljb25AcHl0aG9uLm9yZw--Huh?
I get a mostly blank page. Perhaps there are no authors by thatname.tjr
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Thursday 20 January 2005 12:43, Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 13:37 +, Michael Hudson wrote:
The main oddness about python threads (before 2.3) is that they run
with all signals masked. You could play with a C wrapper (call
setprocmask, then exec fop) to see if this is
11 matches
Mail list logo
