Le 20/04/15 09:15, Armin Rigo a écrit :
Hi Ronan,
On 19 April 2015 at 19:49, Ronan Lamy wrote:
Well, I think that the only sane way to port something as big as RPython is
to do it incrementally - by getting tests to pass on 3 one subpackage at a
time. The parts that are ported will have to be
Hi Laura,
On 20 April 2015 at 12:45, Laura Creighton wrote:
> Sounds to me as if you are talking youself into it. ;)
I'm not. I'm talking myself into thinking it would be the most
approachable route (which can of course be wrong). But I'm not
looking forward to what would come next: once we ha
In a message of Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:28:19 +0200, Armin Rigo writes:
>Ok. Then yes, I think there should be little intrinsic reason for it
>to be slower (apart from some bytes/unicodes changes, which should not
>be too important in this case), and it would be a good excuse to focus
>on the performa
Hi Laura,
On 20 April 2015 at 12:18, Laura Creighton wrote:
> I was worried about translation speed.
Ok. Then yes, I think there should be little intrinsic reason for it
to be slower (apart from some bytes/unicodes changes, which should not
be too important in this case), and it would be a good
In a message of Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:04:10 +0200, Armin Rigo writes:
>Hi Laura,
>
>On 20 April 2015 at 11:53, Laura Creighton wrote:
>> I worry that this will be slow.
>
>Slow at which level? The final speed of some translated PyPy should
>not be influenced, but maybe translation itself can become
Hi Laura,
On 20 April 2015 at 11:53, Laura Creighton wrote:
> I worry that this will be slow.
Slow at which level? The final speed of some translated PyPy should
not be influenced, but maybe translation itself can become slower.
But then it would be good motivation to do performance improvement
In a message of Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:15:52 +0200, Armin Rigo writes:
>I think I still prefer the "upgrade everything at once and forget
>about Python 2" approach.
I worry that this will be slow.
Laura
___
pypy-dev mailing list
pypy-dev@python.org
https:
Hi,
sorry for responding so late, I was at a conference.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Armin Rigo wrote:
> I would imagine that a better way would be to not care about
> restricted style at all. If we really decide to move to Python 3,
> then maybe we should drop 2.7 altogether and all
Hi Ronan,
On 19 April 2015 at 19:49, Ronan Lamy wrote:
> Well, I think that the only sane way to port something as big as RPython is
> to do it incrementally - by getting tests to pass on 3 one subpackage at a
> time. The parts that are ported will have to be written in mixed 2/3 style,
> but hav
Changing topic a bit.
For what is worth, my pet peeve right now is to make
pypy.tool.gdb_pypy py2/3 compatible, it would be terrific if that can
happen as a first step. This is one place where we NEED TO make this
happen and despite 2 or 3 attempts I completely failed at that. New
GDB ships with p
10 matches
Mail list logo
