On 21 March 2012 20:24, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:47 AM, mark florisson > <markflorisso...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 20 March 2012 18:51, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: >>> mark florisson, 20.03.2012 17:40: >>>> On 18 March 2012 11:58, Stefan Behnel wrote: >>>>> I put up two new pull requests on github: >>>>> >>>>> Implementation of PEP 380 (yield from): >>>>> https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/96 >>>>> >>>>> Rewrite of dict iteration: >>>>> https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/95 >>>>> >>>>> Given that the release of 0.16 has currently slowed down a bit, and given >>>>> that these are really nice features, could someone (and especially Mark, >>>>> as >>>>> the responsible release manager) take a look at them and give an opinion >>>>> regarding their suitability for 0.16? >>>> >>>> Sorry about the slowdown, my BT internet connection at home got closed >>>> off, so working on a release is rather hard, hopefully that will be >>>> fixed within the next few days. > > Thanks for the status update. Is there a separate release branch, or > are you working off the github master? Is there a list of > issues/blockers somewhere?
I created a release branch called release0.16 (there was a previous release branch for 0.15.1 which I could have pruned as well). >>>> Anyway, during the sprints Dag worked >>>> on the numpy attributes accesses to generate non-deprecated numpy >>>> code, I'm not sure how far along that is and if we can get that in as >>>> well, or have it wait until 0.16.1. >>> >>> I wouldn't mind if my changes waited for 0.16.1 as well, as long as that's >>> not too long from now. There will certainly be things to fix after the >>> release anyway. >>> >>> >>>> I worked on enhancing fused types runtime dispatching (e.g. select the >>>> right specialization at runtime from the argument types), especially >>>> on matching buffers. It's also a bit of a rewrite as the complexity >>>> grew quite a bit and ndarray and fused types were broken in subtle >>>> ways (I would do the pull request now if I hadn't left the code at >>>> home :). >>> >>> I took a tiny look at that when I wrote a test case and was surprised to >>> see that it imports "sys" inside of the generated function. Looks like >>> there's a bit left to optimise. >>> >>> I faintly remember a blog post (or more than one) by PJ Eby when he wrote a >>> "generic functions" module. It uses type dispatching as well, and he wrote >>> about the ways he found to tune that. Might be an interesting read. >>> >> >> Thanks, I'll look into that. Maybe the modules could be bound as >> locals through default arguments. >> >>>> Finally, there is a serious bug in the reversed(range()) optimization >>>> that Mike Graham discovered when working on the range() optimization >>>> with a runtime step, which is basically wrong for any step that is not >>>> 1 or -1 (it simply swaps the bounds with an offset by 1, but it >>>> actually has to figure out what the actual last value was in the range >>>> and use that as the start instead). I personally consider this a >>>> blocker, so I'll try contacting Mike and see if he is still >>>> (interested in) working on that. >>> >>> Interesting. Yes, I can well imagine that being wrong. These things are >>> exceedingly tricky. >>> >>> However, it's easy to disable the optimisation for a specific case - likely >>> easier than fixing it. >>> >>> Also, I don't consider this a blocker. It's not like it works in the >>> current release, so it's not a regression compared to that. >>> >> >> Yes, it's not a regression, but I find it hard to release something >> that is so broken, and I feel it kind of represents a lack of care >> which may make people believe Cython can't be taken seriously. > > I'm usually in the "not a regression" camp as well, but this is pretty > fundamental. Sounds like an easy fix, or at least an easy-to-disable > optimization. > >>>> As for the two pull requests, both are quite large, but the dict >>>> iteration rewrite is more like an enhancement whereas the 'yield from' >>>> is really a new (somewhat big) feature. I would personally prefer to >>>> merge only enhancements and bug fixes, but not new features. >>> >>> Funny. I would have proposed the opposite, because I consider the "yield >>> from" implementation (as a new language feature) safer than the dict >>> iteration (which impacts existing code). As I said, I wouldn't mind >>> postponing both to 0.16.1, but I think it would be better to get them out >>> and have people use them, so that we can also fix the bugs earlier. >>> >> >> A good point. My reasoning was that we want less new functionality per >> release, and keeping 'yield from' out of 0.16 makes us push out the >> next release earlier as we will have pending functionality we want to >> get out there. If the dict iteration is tested well enough (and it >> looked to me like that), then hopefully code in sage or lxml will >> break if there are leftover bugs, or our next beta might catch them >> (or some). If you do want it in now, then that's fine with me as well, >> you have a point. > > Has this been pushed into the devel branch for sufficient testing > there (e.g. on Sage)? Personally, I'd like to see the release get out > sooner rather than later. > > - Robert > _______________________________________________ > cython-devel mailing list > cython-devel@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
