On 2005 Feb 20, at 04:35, Jack Diederich wrote:
I always use new style classes so I only have to remember one set of
behaviors.
I agree: that's reason #1 I recommend always using new-style whenever I
teach / tutor / mentor in Python nowadays.
__metaclass__ = type is warty, it has the action at
On 2005 Feb 20, at 05:20, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
...
This sort of thing is easy to test for and easy to fix. The question
is
whether we care about updating this module anymore or is it a relic.
Also, is the use case one that we care about. AFAICT, this has never
come up before.
I did have
Alex Martelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2005 Feb 20, at 04:35, Jack Diederich wrote:
I didn't dig into the C but does having 'type'
as metaclass guarantee the same behavior as inheriting 'object' or
does object
provide something type doesn't? *wince*
I believe the former holds,
Michael Hudson wrote:
Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[SNIP]
And whatever happened to CALL_METHOD?
It didn't work as an optimization, as far as I remember. I think the
patch is on SF somewhere. Or is a branch in CVS? Oh, it's patch
#709744.
Do we need a tp_callmethod that takes an
At 06:38 PM 2/20/05 +, Michael Hudson wrote:
It folds the two steps into a new opcode. In the case of
store_name/load_name, it saves one three byte instruction, a trip around
the eval-loop, two stack mutations, a incref/decref pair, a dictionary
lookup, and an error check (for the
At 07:00 PM 2/20/05 +, Michael Hudson wrote:
Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 08:17 AM 2/20/05 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Where are the attempts to speed up function/method calls? That's an
area where we could *really* use a breakthrough...
Amen!
So what happened to Armin's
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 03:56 PM 2/20/05 -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 07:00 PM 2/20/05 +, Michael Hudson wrote:
Eliminating the blockstack would be nice (esp. if it's enough to get
frames small enough that they get allocated by PyMalloc)
Someone might like to take a look at the way Pyrex
Alex Martelli wrote:
On 2005 Feb 20, at 17:06, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Oh, bah. That's not what basestring was for. I can't blame you or your
client, but my *intention* was that basestring would *only* be the
base of the two *real* built-in string types (str and unicode).
I think all this just
At 04:32 PM 2/21/05 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Hm, actually I think I see the answer; in the case of module-level code
there can be no anonymous local variables the way there can in functions.
Why not? There's still a frame object associated with the call
of the anonymous
At 04:32 PM 2/21/05 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
Alex Martelli wrote:
The need to check is this thingy here string-like is sort of frequent,
because strings are sequences which, when iterated on, yield sequences
(strings of length 1) which, when iterated on, yield sequences ad infinitum.
Yes, this
Eliminating the blockstack would be nice (esp. if it's enough to get
frames small enough that they get allocated by PyMalloc) but this
seemed to be tricky too (or at least Armin, Samuele and I spent a
cuple of hours yakking about it on IRC and didn't come up with a clear
approach).
11 matches
Mail list logo
