Re: [Python-Dev] Someons's put a "Python 2.8" on GitHub

2016-12-12 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 13 December 2016 at 02:12, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> It absolutely *is* relevant, as is how diligent the redistributors are >> in differentiating between the unmodified upstream project and the >> patches we have applied post-release (rath

Re: [Python-Dev] On time complexity of heapq.heapify

2016-12-12 Thread Raymond Hettinger
> On Dec 12, 2016, at 8:12 AM, Raymond Hettinger > wrote: > > The heapify() algorithm is well known and well studied. A quick Google > search turns up plenty of explanations: > https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=complexity%20of%20heapify > > > al

Re: [Python-Dev] Someons's put a "Python 2.8" on GitHub

2016-12-12 Thread Chris Angelico
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > It absolutely *is* relevant, as is how diligent the redistributors are > in differentiating between the unmodified upstream project and the > patches we have applied post-release (rather than just posting the end > result without a clear audi

Re: [Python-Dev] On time complexity of heapq.heapify

2016-12-12 Thread Raymond Hettinger
> On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Rafael Almeida wrote: > > From what I gather, _siftup(heap, pos) does not run in constant time, but > rather it runs in time proportional to the height of the subtree with root in > ``pos''. Although, according to the in-code comments, it should be faster > than

[Python-Dev] On time complexity of heapq.heapify

2016-12-12 Thread Rafael Almeida
Hello, Current heapify documentation says it takes linear time https://docs.python.org/3/library/heapq.html#heapq.heapify However, investigating the code (Python 3.5.2) I saw this: def heapify(x): """Transform list into a heap, in-place, in O(len(x)) time.""" n = len(x)

Re: [Python-Dev] PyObject_CallFunction(func, "O", arg) special case

2016-12-12 Thread Annapoornima Koppad
I am not sure, but soon, I will be a great fan of your work, once I get to work on this! Thank your for inspiring me to work on these stuff! Best regards, Annapoornima On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > 2016-12-09 18:46 GMT+01:00 Victor Stinner : > > Last days, I patched

Re: [Python-Dev] Someons's put a "Python 2.8" on GitHub

2016-12-12 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 12 December 2016 at 19:10, Wes Turner wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull > wrote: >> Exactly how lenient an open source project can be with naming of >> forks, I don't know. I would hope that courts would not look amiss at >> the common practice of letting distros t

Re: [Python-Dev] Someons's put a "Python 2.8" on GitHub

2016-12-12 Thread Burkhard Meier
~ Just upgrade to Python 3.6 and forget about this non~sense! ~ On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 03:10:09AM -0600, Wes Turner wrote: > > [Continuing to play devil's advocate for the sake of clarification] > > Clarification of *what* exactly? You d

Re: [Python-Dev] Someons's put a "Python 2.8" on GitHub

2016-12-12 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 03:10:09AM -0600, Wes Turner wrote: > [Continuing to play devil's advocate for the sake of clarification] Clarification of *what* exactly? You don't seem to be asking any questions, just making statements. If you have a concrete, specific question, please ask it. If its a

Re: [Python-Dev] Someons's put a "Python 2.8" on GitHub

2016-12-12 Thread Wes Turner
[Continuing to play devil's advocate for the sake of clarification] On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Wes Turner writes: > > > So forks with modules added or removed cannot be called Python? > > Forks without the blessing of the PSF cannot be called Python? > > Tha

Re: [Python-Dev] Someons's put a "Python 2.8" on GitHub

2016-12-12 Thread Stephen J. Turnbull
Wes Turner writes: > So forks with modules added or removed cannot be called Python? > Forks without the blessing of the PSF cannot be called Python? > That's really not open source. Of course it is. The source is open and free. But that's not what is in play here. The legal theory is tha