> Coming back to this: Why is this done anyway? Can't the new instance of the
> unicode-subtype just steal the buffer pointer of the already allocated
> unicode
> object?
Only if the refcount of the tmp object is 1. But then, yes, it could.
You then also need to change unicode_dealloc, to only
mal> Besides, what's so bad with downloading and installing a package
mal> from PyPI ?
Nothing, I do it all the time. But my impression is that when an external
module moves into the core it frequently undergoes some type of name change
(e.g. pysqlite vs sqlite3 or Optik vs optparse) eve
mal> If all you want to do is get the module into the dbm package, why
mal> not make this explicit by requiring an import to install the extra
mal> module ?!
mal> import install_dbm_sqlite
mal> which then does:
mal> import sys, dbm
mal> import dbm_sqlite
mal> #
On 2008-09-09 21:49, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Josiah Carlson gmail.com> writes:
>> While the wrapper for sqlite to offer
>> a dbm-like interface is relatively untested (it does have testcases
>> thanks to Skip), dealing with a couple-hundred (at most) line wrapper
>> is far more reasonable for test
On 2008-09-06 23:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out how to install this dbm.sqlite module I have
> without overwriting the basic install. My thought was to create a dbm
> package in site-packages then copy sqlite.py there. That doesn't work
> though. Modifying dbm.__init__.p
At 12:38 PM 9/9/2008 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:28 PM 9/6/2008 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I'm trying to figure out how to install this dbm.sqli
Josiah Carlson gmail.com> writes:
>
> While the wrapper for sqlite to offer
> a dbm-like interface is relatively untested (it does have testcases
> thanks to Skip), dealing with a couple-hundred (at most) line wrapper
> is far more reasonable for testing, verification, bugfixing, etc.,
> than the
Given that the *API* is fixed though, it is probably better to have the
module present in 3.0 and bring it back to the main line in 2.7.
If any absolute clangers from a performance/stability point of view get
past Raymond (and everyone else with an interest in this) then they can
be addressed in
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:28 PM 9/6/2008 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I'm trying to figure out how to install this dbm.sqlite module I have
>> > without overwriting the basi
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Given that the *API* is fixed though, it is probably better to have the
>> module present in 3.0 and bring it back to the main line in 2.7.
>>
>> If any absolute clangers from a perfor
At 03:28 PM 9/6/2008 -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out how to install this dbm.sqlite module I have
> without overwriting the basic install. My thought was to create a dbm
> package in site-packages then copy sqlite.
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> 3781 warnings.catch_warnings fails gracelessly when recording warnings
I just assigned this one to myself - I'll have a patch up for review
shortly (the patch will revert back to having this be a regression test
suite only feature).
Cheers,
Nick.
___
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
>> beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
>> to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issues to clean
>> u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 9, 2008, at 3:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Even if I can't contribute very much at the moment, I'm still +1 to
that.
I doubt Python would get nice publicity if we released a 3.0 but had
to
tell everyone, "but don't really use it yet, it may
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Guido van Rossum]
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Well, from the number of release blockers it sounds like another 3.0
beta is the right thing. For 2.6 however I believe we're much closer
to the finish line -- there aren't all those bytes/str issu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Perhaps it's time to separate the 2.6 and 3.0 release schedules? I
don't care if the next version of OSX contains 3.0 or not -- but I do
care about it having 2.6.
I've talked with my contact at M
On Sep 8, 2008, at 1:13 PM, "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think there's any way we're going to make our October 1st
goal. We
have 8 open release critical bugs, and 18 deferred blockers. We do
Hello,
M.-A. Lemburg egenix.com> writes:
>
> It turned out that the patch only provides a marginal performance
> improvement, so the perceived main argument for the PyVarObject
> implementation doesn't turn out to be a real advantage.
Uh, while the results are not always overwhelming, they are
Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Stefan Behnel behnel.de> writes:
>>> From a Cython perspective, I find the lack of efficient subclassing after
>>> such a change particularly striking.
>> what do you call "efficient subclassing"? if you look at the current
>> implementation of unico
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>
> Given that the *API* is fixed though, it is probably better to have the
> module present in 3.0 and bring it back to the main line in 2.7.
>
> If any absolute clangers from a performance/stability point of view get
> past Raymond (and everyone else with an int
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Raymond> With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite
> Raymond> to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves
> Raymond> won't become useless on Windows builds.
>
> My vote is to separate 2.6 and 3.0 then come back together for
Before jumping to conclusions, please read the discussion on the
patch ticket:
http://bugs.python.org/issue1943
It turned out that the patch only provides a marginal performance
improvement, so the perceived main argument for the PyVarObject
implementation doesn't turn out to be a real advant
Stefan Behnel wrote:
> (s + s->tp_basicsize)
I (obviously) meant
(s + Py_TYPE(s)->tp_basicsize)
so the impact is another bit bigger.
Stefan
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
Greg Ewing canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
> > We create a new struct for the type that contains the parent-struct
> > as first field, and then we add the new attributes of the new type behind
> > that.
>
> I seem to remember there's a field in the type called tp_basicsize
> that's meant to indicate ho
25 matches
Mail list logo
