[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:35:29AM +0200, Yotam Rubin wrote:
>> Why don't you use Stackless? It's very simple, stable, and solves
>> quite completely the problems in writing concurrect code.
>
> That's a great point -- I'm not necessarily producing this to solve a
> prob
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:35:29AM +0200, Yotam Rubin wrote:
> Why don't you use Stackless? It's very simple, stable, and solves
> quite completely the problems in writing concurrect code.
That's a great point -- I'm not necessarily producing this to solve a
problem I'm having. Rather, I think th
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 2/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Is there any interest in including a simple microthreading module in
>> Python's standard library?
>
> Basically, the list of things you need to do (typically, these are
> just guidelines
> If this sounds like a terrible idea, let fly the n00b-seeking missiles.
Sounds like a good idea. We did this with ILU, and it helped manage
the overhead of threads quite a bit. Brett's comments on "the next step"
are right on target.
Bill
___
Python
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 03:00:28PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
> 1. Write it
> 2. Get the community to use it and like it
> 3. Make it follow PEP 7/8 style guidelines
> 4. Write docs
> 5. Write tests
> 6. Promise to help maintain the code.
Thanks -- I hadn't really planned that far ahead yet. I ex
On 2/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mostly for my own curiosity, I'm working on a PEP-342-based
> microthreading library with a similar api to threads and threading
> (coalesced into a single module). It uses coroutines and a trampoline
> scheduler, and provides basic async
On 2/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Guido> I'm not going to change ftplib.py and all the others.
>
> >> Also understood. This has, as far as I know, been the response of
> >> everybody who has encountered this problem before.
>
> Martin> You should read you
On 2/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Guido> I'm not going to change ftplib.py and all the others.
>
> >> Also understood. This has, as far as I know, been the response of
> >> everybody who has encountered this problem before.
>
> Martin> You should read you
Mostly for my own curiosity, I'm working on a PEP-342-based
microthreading library with a similar api to threads and threading
(coalesced into a single module). It uses coroutines and a trampoline
scheduler, and provides basic async wrappers for common IO operations.
It's not a framework/environm
On 2/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido, I looked at urllib2 and quickly gave up. I have no idea how that
> code works (where is a lower level library's connection object instantiated,
> for example?). I presume with timeouts in the lower level libraries someone
> who kno
Guido> I'm not going to change ftplib.py and all the others.
>> Also understood. This has, as far as I know, been the response of
>> everybody who has encountered this problem before.
Martin> You should read your SF bug list more frequently, then. You are
Martin> currently a
>> I don't know if feature requests for Roundup are still being
>> accepted, but I hope one of its features is that it can remind people
>> periodically of the tickets they own. My primary goal in life is not
>> to close Python bugs and patches, so I hope people will understand if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> I don't know if feature requests for Roundup are still being accepted, but I
> hope one of its features is that it can remind people periodically of the
> tickets they own. My primary goal in life is not to close Python bugs and
> patches, so I hope people will underst
Guido> I'm not going to change ftplib.py and all the others.
>> Also understood. This has, as far as I know, been the response of
>> everybody who has encountered this problem before.
Martin> You should read your SF bug list more frequently, then. You are
Martin> currently a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> Guido> I'm not going to change ftplib.py and all the others.
>
> Also understood. This has, as far as I know, been the response of everybody
> who has encountered this problem before.
You should read your SF bug list more frequently, then. You are
currently as
Jim Jewett schrieb:
> Either
>
> x**= n % 10 # The **= changes the parse context, so that %
> is no longer
> # immediately evaluated
Are you seriously proposing such a change? I was asking for
spellings that currently don't have a meaning (rather, I was
Greg Ewing schrieb:
>> What could the syntax for that be?
>
> It wouldn't be a syntax, just a function, e.g.
>
>ipow(x, n, 10)
In what way would that be inplace? A function cannot
rebind the variables it gets as parameters.
Regards,
Martin
___
Pyt
17 matches
Mail list logo
