[Python-Dev] Preference for of patch submission?

2016-10-24 Thread Barry Scott 
I am over due providing a patch for a doc issue that was discussed on
the ideas list.

What is the preferred way to provide cpython with a patch these days?

bug report + patch?
pull request on github?
something else?

Barry

___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Preference for of patch submission?

2016-10-24 Thread Guido van Rossum 
The preferred (only) way is upload a patch to bugs.python.org. The
patch should be relative to a recent branch of the Hg master repo. If
the patch applies cleanly to the Hg master repo, a link to the code
review will appear within a few minutes there.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Barry Scott  wrote:
> I am over due providing a patch for a doc issue that was discussed on
> the ideas list.
>
> What is the preferred way to provide cpython with a patch these days?
>
> bug report + patch?
> pull request on github?
> something else?
>
> Barry
>
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org



-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Python-Dev] Adding bytes.frombuffer() constructor to PEP 467 (was: [Python-ideas] Adding bytes.frombuffer() constructor

2016-10-24 Thread Chris Barker 
Before the horse is totally dead... (maybe it already is), a couple
comments:


> In such cases, an extension module written in something like Cython, C
> or Rust would be a better fit,


well, yes, but:


> From that perspective, adding "[bytes/bytearray].frombuffer"


this would be used for the fairly simple use case of passing stuff around
between different modules, which would probably be written in something
lower lever -- unless they too, only passed data around. Passign data
around is a pretty good use-case for Python.

is adding
> complexity to the core language for the sake of giving people one
> small additional piece of incremental performance improvement


here's the thing: this is a very small increase in complexity in exchange
for a small increase in performance -- really not a big deal either way. If
either of those were large, hte decision would be a no brainer.

By contrast, a library that provided better low level data buffer
> manipulation that was suitable for asyncio's needs is *much* easier to
> emulate on older versions, and provides more scope for extracting
> efficient data manipulation patterns beyond this one very specific
> case of more efficiently snapshotting a subset of an existing buffer.
>


IS this na either-or? IF someone is proposing a nice lib for "low level
data buffer
manipulation", then yes, putting frombuffer() in there would be a fine idea.

But if there is no such proposal on the table, then I think adding a
frombuffer method to the bytes object is a small improvement that we can do
now.

https://blog.sentry.io/2016/10/19/fixing-python-performance-with-rust.html


pretty cool -- I guess I should take a look at Rust...

Thanks,

  -CHB



-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

[email protected]
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com