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
Le 18/04/15 10:02, Armin Rigo a écrit :
Hi VanL,
On 17 April 2015 at 23:50, VanL wrote:
I am not trying to force you (or anyone) to use Py3. I have been working on
this in a private branch for a little bit, and I am happy to continue to do
so. As I said earlier in the thread, I had gotten the
Hi VanL,
On 17 April 2015 at 23:50, VanL wrote:
> I am not trying to force you (or anyone) to use Py3. I have been working on
> this in a private branch for a little bit, and I am happy to continue to do
> so. As I said earlier in the thread, I had gotten the impression that these
> changes would
Hi Armin,
I am not trying to force you (or anyone) to use Py3. I have been working on
this in a private branch for a little bit, and I am happy to continue to do
so. As I said earlier in the thread, I had gotten the impression that these
changes would not make you or the other PyPy devs happy, so
Hi,
I have kept quiet on this issue, but I'd like to mention that I'm not
looking forward at all --but would accept it anyway if others deemed
it a good idea-- to have to write all my code in all of "rpython/" in
the restricted style of 2+3 mixed-mode code bases.
This might create a source of fri
Le 17/04/15 16:58, VanL a écrit :
A question came up in the discussion of a pull request: What is the
allowable scope? I propose pypy/ and rpython/ as those are fairly
intertwined.
Comments?
You've stated that your goal is to allow the building of pypy[2|3] with
pypy[2|3], but that requires s
rpython/ and pypy/ should not be intervined. In fact we're putting
effort into making them two separate projects
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:58 PM, VanL wrote:
> A question came up in the discussion of a pull request: What is the
> allowable scope? I propose pypy/ and rpython/ as those are fairly
>
Where possible (e.g. syntax changes), I'd love to constrain the scope as
much as possible. It's MUCH easier to review 100 20-line pull requests than
it is to review a 2000-line PR.
Alex
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:58 AM, VanL wrote:
> A question came up in the discussion of a pull request: What
A question came up in the discussion of a pull request: What is the
allowable scope? I propose pypy/ and rpython/ as those are fairly
intertwined.
Comments?
___
pypy-dev mailing list
pypy-dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
A quick overall response: I know that a lot of what I am talking about *is
possible* using RPython. That is one reason why I am starting where I am.
That doesn't necessarily make it easy (or as easy as it could be).
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Ronan Lamy wrote:
> Why Py3?: I like Py3 be
Le 16/04/15 14:55, VanL a écrit :
Hi Maciej,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski mailto:fij...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Van.
First of all I'm really sorry if we ever gave an impression that
working on porting RPython to Python 3 would not be welcomed and I
would li
Just bundled up a few of the more mechanical changes into a PR and sent it
upstream.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:55 AM, VanL wrote:
> Hi Maciej,
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Van.
>>
>> First of all I'm really sorry if we ever gave an impression that
>>
Hi Maciej,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski
wrote:
> Hi Van.
>
> First of all I'm really sorry if we ever gave an impression that
> working on porting RPython to Python 3 would not be welcomed and I
> would like to strongly disagree with that.
>
> What we did say (or wanted to
2015-04-16 14:02 GMT+02:00 Maciej Fijalkowski :
> > I think *some* conversion should be allowed, for example when the
> unicode is
> > a constant.
> > (maybe with a SomeAsciiString annotation)
> > Otherwise, do we need to rewrite all calls like `space.call_method(w_x,
> > "split")`?
> >
> > Anothe
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Ronan Lamy wrote:
> 4. At some point in the future, I plan on reworking the rpython
>> toolchain in various ways - use python 3 function and type annotations
>> so as to make the flow of types be easier to see, fully split out the
>> rpython and non-rpython bit
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
wrote:
>
> 2015-04-16 10:48 GMT+02:00 Maciej Fijalkowski :
>>
>> >
>> > 2. I am initially doing this work in a way that maintains 2/3
>> > compatibility
>> > - my check before each major commit is whether I can still build pypy
>> > using
>> >
2015-04-16 10:48 GMT+02:00 Maciej Fijalkowski :
> >
> > 2. I am initially doing this work in a way that maintains 2/3
> compatibility
> > - my check before each major commit is whether I can still build pypy
> using
> > pypy2. Would the pypy devs be willing to make building pypy be 2.7+ only?
> >
Hi Van.
First of all I'm really sorry if we ever gave an impression that
working on porting RPython to Python 3 would not be welcomed and I
would like to strongly disagree with that.
What we did say (or wanted to say) is that we're unlikely to put a
significant effort into doing the porting ourse
>
>
> pypy is already 2.7 only. It's only rpython that still supports 2.6,
> probably (we have no CI for 2.6, so it's not even clear that it really
> works). I'm +1 for dropping it.
RPython is also 2.7 only, we dropped the 2.6 support a while ago
___
pyp
Le 15/04/15 20:34, VanL a écrit :
Hi everyone,
For the last little bit I have been working on porting the rpython
toolchain to Python 3. My initial goal is to get either pypy2 or pypy3
to build with either pypy2 or pypy3.
Porting rpython and porting pypy are different problems. I'm not sure
i
Hi everyone,
For the last little bit I have been working on porting the rpython
toolchain to Python 3. My initial goal is to get either pypy2 or pypy3 to
build with either pypy2 or pypy3.
I had gotten the impression from some previous statements that these
efforts would not be welcome, so I was d
30 matches
Mail list logo
