Ulisses Furquim schrieb:
> I've read some threads about signals in the archives and I was under
> the impression signals should work reliably on single-threaded
> applications. Am I right? I've thought about a way to fix this, but I
> don't know what is the current plan for signals support in pyth
> If "real" and "imag" are themselves complex numbers, then normalizing
> the result will move the imaginary portion of the "real" vector into
> the imaginary part and vice versa.
Not quite.
>>> complex(1,1j)
0j
>>> complex(0,1j)
(-1+0j)
So it moves the imaginary portion of the "imag" argument i
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007, Ulisses Furquim wrote:
>
> I've read some threads about signals in the archives and I was under
> the impression signals should work reliably on single-threaded
> applications. Am I right? I've thought about a way to fix this, but I
> don't know what is the current plan for s
Kristján V. Jónsson schrieb:
> I am trying to insert a hook into python enabling a callback for all
> just-created objects. The intention is to debug and find memory leaks,
> e.g. by having the hook function insert the object into a WeakKeyDictionary.
I'd like to point out that this isn't a pytho
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 07:01, Tim Peters wrote:
> complex_new() ends with:
>
> cr.real -= ci.imag;
> cr.imag += ci.real;
>
> and I have no idea what that thinks it's doing. Surely this isn't
intended?!:
> >>> complex(complex(1.0, 2.0), complex(10.0, 20.0))
>
> (-19+12j)
>
> WTF?
Kristján V. Jónsson wrote:
> Hello there.
>
> I am trying to insert a hook into python enabling a callback for all
> just-created objects. The intention is to debug and find memory leaks,
> e.g. by having the hook function insert the object into a WeakKeyDictionary.
>
> I have already added a
[Armin]
>>> BTW - isn't that case in contradiction with the general Python rule that
>>> if b > 0, then a % b should return a number between 0 included and b
>>> excluded?
[Tim]
>> Sure.
[Armin]
> You're not addressing my point, though, so I was probably not clear
> enough.
"Sure" is the answer
On 1/23/07, Kristján V. Jónsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello there.
>
> I am trying to insert a hook into python enabling a callback for all
> just-created objects. The intention is to debug and find memory leaks, e.g.
> by having the hook function insert the object into a WeakKeyDictionary
"Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Peters wrote:
>
> > complex_new() ends with:
>
> > cr.real -= ci.imag;
> > cr.imag += ci.real;
>
> > and I have no idea what that thinks it's doing. Surely this isn't
> > intended?!
> :
>
> I think it is. python.org/sf/1642844 adds c
Tim Peters wrote:
> complex_new() ends with:
> cr.real -= ci.imag;
> cr.imag += ci.real;
> and I have no idea what that thinks it's doing. Surely this isn't intended?!:
I think it is. python.org/sf/1642844 adds comments to make it less unclear.
> >>> complex(complex(1.0, 2.0),
Hi,
I'm aware of the problems with signals in a multithreaded application,
but I was using signals in a single-threaded application and noticed
something that seemed wrong. Some signals were apparently being lost,
but when another signal came in the python handler for that "lost"
signal was being
"Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >... I can work with and teach almost any model,
> > and have done so with some pretty weird ones.
>
> I think python's model is "Whatever your other tools use. Ask them."
> And I think that is a reasonable choice.
Answer: It's undefined. Just because
Nick Maclaren wrote:
>... I can work with and teach almost any model,
> and have done so with some pretty weird ones.
I think python's model is "Whatever your other tools use. Ask them."
And I think that is a reasonable choice.
For sensible input, the various models all work the same.
For dubio
[Tim Peters]
> [Anders J. Munch]
> > I did read the whole thread, and I saw your -1%1e100 example. Mixing
> > floating-point numbers of very different magnitude can get you in
> > trouble - e.g. -1+1e100==1e100. I don't think -1%1e100 is all that
> > worse.
>
> Except that it's very easy to retu
Hi Tim,
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 09:08:18PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
> >BTW - isn't that case in contradiction with the general Python rule that
> >if b > 0, then a % b should return a number between 0 included and b
> >excluded?
>
> Sure.
You're not addressing my point, though, so I was probably
Hello there.
I am trying to insert a hook into python enabling a callback for all
just-created objects. The intention is to debug and find memory leaks, e.g. by
having the hook function insert the object into a WeakKeyDictionary.
I have already added a method to "object" to set such a hook, and
...
[Facundo]
>> We'll have to deprecate that functionality, with proper warnings (take
>> not I'm not following the thread that discuss the migration path to 3k).
>>
>> And we'll have to add the method "remainder" to decimal objects (right
>> now we have only "remainder_near" in decimal objects,
>> Do note that this discussion is only about Python 3. Under the view
>> that it was a (minor, but real) design error to /try/ extending
>> Python's integer mod definition to floats, if __mod__, and __divmod__
>> and __floordiv__ go away for binary floats in P3K they should
>> certainly go away
Tim Peters wrote:
> Which "Spec"? For example, floor division isn't mentioned at all in
> IBM's proposed decimal standard, or in PEP 327, or in the Python
Oops, you're right. My fault, sorry.
> Library Reference section on `decimal`. It's an artifact of trying to
> extend Python's integer mod
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 22:27, Tim Peters wrote:
> Which is why I don't want binary or decimal floats to support
> infix "%" as a spelling in P3K. I don't believe floating mod is
> heavily used, and if so there's scant need for a one-character
> spelling -- and if there's a method or function n
A generic comment. Many of my postings seem to be being misunderstood.
I hold no brief for ANY particular floating-point religion, sect or
heresy, except insofar as it affects robustness and portability (i.e.
"software engineering"). I can work with and teach almost any model,
and have done so w
Michael Hudson wrote:
> Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 23/01/2007 10.20, Brian Warner wrote:
>>
> Do I miss something here, or is the buildbot hit by spammers now?
It looks like it is. If that continues, we have to disable the web
triggers.
>>> Good grief. If anyon
[Tim Peters]
>> Please read the whole thread. Maybe you did, but you said nothing
>> here that indicated you had. The issues aren't about tiny integers
>> that happen to be in float format, where the result is exactly
>> representable as a float too. Those don't create problems for any
>> defini
Tim Peters wrote:
> Please read the whole thread. Maybe you did, but you said nothing
> here that indicated you had. The issues aren't about tiny integers
> that happen to be in float format, where the result is exactly
> representable as a float too. Those don't create problems for any
> defini
[Guido]
>>> I guess the conjugate() function could also just return self (although I see
>>> that conjugate() for a complex with a zero imaginary part returns
>>> something whose imaginary part is -0; is that intentional?
[TIm Peters]
>> That's wrong, if true: it should return something with the
Brian> Good grief. If anyone has any bright ideas about simple ways to
Brian> change that form to make it less vulnerable to the spambots, I'd
Brian> be happy to incorporate them into Buildbot.
Require a password? It can be widely known throughout each buildbot
community with little
Tim> For example, floor division isn't mentioned at all in IBM's
Tim> proposed decimal standard, or in PEP 327, or in the Python Library
Tim> Reference section on `decimal`. It's an artifact of trying to
Tim> extend Python's integer mod definition to floats, and for reasons
Ti
Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 23/01/2007 10.20, Brian Warner wrote:
>
Do I miss something here, or is the buildbot hit by spammers now?
>>> It looks like it is. If that continues, we have to disable the web
>>> triggers.
>>
>> Good grief. If anyone has any bright ideas about
[Anders J. Munch]
> What design error? float.__mod__ works perfectly.
>
> >>> -1 % 50
> 49
> >>> -1.0 % 50.0
> 49.0
> >>>
Please read the whole thread. Maybe you did, but you said nothing
here that indicated you had. The issues aren't about tiny integers
that happen to be in float format, where
"Tim Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I guess the conjugate() function could also just return self (although I see
> > that conjugate() for a complex with a zero imaginary part returns
> > something whose imaginary part is -0; is that intentional?
>
> That's wrong, if true: it should retu
On 23/01/2007 10.20, Brian Warner wrote:
>>> Do I miss something here, or is the buildbot hit by spammers now?
>> It looks like it is. If that continues, we have to disable the web
>> triggers.
>
> Good grief. If anyone has any bright ideas about simple ways to change that
> form to make it less
Tim Peters wrote:
> Do note that this discussion is only about Python 3. Under the view
> that it was a (minor, but real) design error to /try/ extending
> Python's integer mod definition to floats, if __mod__, and __divmod__
> and __floordiv__ go away for binary floats in P3K they should
> certai
>> Do I miss something here, or is the buildbot hit by spammers now?
>
> It looks like it is. If that continues, we have to disable the web
> triggers.
Good grief. If anyone has any bright ideas about simple ways to change that
form to make it less vulnerable to the spambots, I'd be happy to incor
33 matches
Mail list logo
