Re: [Python-Dev] Python-versus-CPython question for __mul__ dispatch

2015-05-14 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I expect you can make something that behaves like list by defining __mul__ > and __rmul__ and returning NotImplemented. Hmm, it's fairly tricky, and part of the trick is that you can never return NotImplemented (because you have to pretty

Re: [Python-Dev] cpython: inspect: Add __slots__ to BoundArguments.

2015-05-14 Thread Serhiy Storchaka
On 14.05.15 00:38, yury.selivanov wrote: https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ee31277386cb changeset: 96038:ee31277386cb user:Yury Selivanov date:Wed May 13 17:18:41 2015 -0400 summary: inspect: Add __slots__ to BoundArguments. Note that adding __slots__ breaks pickleability.

Re: [Python-Dev] cpython: inspect: Micro-optimize __eq__ for Signature, Parameter and BoundArguments

2015-05-14 Thread Serhiy Storchaka
On 15.05.15 01:23, yury.selivanov wrote: https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/f0b10980b19e changeset: 96056:f0b10980b19e parent: 96054:15701e89d710 user:Yury Selivanov date:Thu May 14 18:20:01 2015 -0400 summary: inspect: Micro-optimize __eq__ for Signature, Parameter and

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-versus-CPython question for __mul__ dispatch

2015-05-14 Thread Guido van Rossum
I expect you can make something that behaves like list by defining __mul__ and __rmul__ and returning NotImplemented. On Thursday, May 14, 2015, Stefan Richthofer wrote: > >>Should I be worried? > > You mean should *I* be worried ;) > > Stuff like this is highly relevant for JyNI, so thanks very

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-versus-CPython question for __mul__ dispatch

2015-05-14 Thread Stefan Richthofer
>>Should I be worried? You mean should *I* be worried ;) Stuff like this is highly relevant for JyNI, so thanks very much for clarifying this subtle behavior. It went onto my todo-list right now to ensure that JyNI will emulate this behavior as soon as I am done with gc-support. (Hopefully it w

[Python-Dev] Python-versus-CPython question for __mul__ dispatch

2015-05-14 Thread Nathaniel Smith
Hi all, While attempting to clean up some of the more squamous aspects of numpy's operator dispatch code [1][2], I've encountered a situation where the semantics we want and are using are possible according to CPython-the-interpreter, but AFAICT ought not to be possible according to Python-the-lan

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 455 -- TransformDict

2015-05-14 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 15 May 2015 at 00:41, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Thanks for this thorough review, Raymond! Especially the user research is > amazing. > > And thanks for Antoine for writing the PEP -- you never know how an idea > pans out until you've tried it. Hear, hear! I thought the TransformDict idea soun

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 455 -- TransformDict

2015-05-14 Thread Guido van Rossum
Thanks for this thorough review, Raymond! Especially the user research is amazing. And thanks for Antoine for writing the PEP -- you never know how an idea pans out until you've tried it. --Guido On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Raymond Hettinger < raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Before

[Python-Dev] PEP 455 -- TransformDict

2015-05-14 Thread Raymond Hettinger
Before the Python 3.5 feature freeze, I should step-up and formally reject PEP 455 for "Adding a key-transforming dictionary to collections". I had completed an involved review effort a long time ago and I apologize for the delay in making the pronouncement. What made it a interesting choice from

Re: [Python-Dev] How shall we conduct the Python 3.5 beta and rc periods? (Please vote!)

2015-05-14 Thread Larry Hastings
On 05/12/2015 10:04 AM, Larry Hastings wrote: What do you think? [...] Please cast your votes workflow 012 Larry Hastings-0.5 10.5 Brett Cannon 010 Nick Coghlan 010 Chris Angelico 000“in favor of [Workflow 1]” Ned Deily

Re: [Python-Dev] Mac popups running make test

2015-05-14 Thread Ronald Oussoren
> On 12 May 2015, at 18:14, Tal Einat wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Skip Montanaro > wrote: >> >>> Twice now, I've gotten this popup: ... >> >> Let me improve my request, as it seems there is some confusion about >> what I want. I'm specifically not asking that the popups not be