[Sorry, the send key pressed itself there]
Touching the sources should also work, and is a little quicker (but this
is usually only practical for small projects).
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
_
Neil Toronto wrote:
[...]
> If you're going to run these benchmarks yourself, make sure you "make
> clean" before building with different options. (I don't know why it's
> necessary, but it is.)
Because the dependencies evaluated by "make" don't take into account the
different options that wer
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Greg Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | I think the situation with __main__ is different from __builtin__,
>
> I effectively agreed by not disputing Guido's response ;-)
Very cunning. But I was even more cunning, and didn't even *consi
Neal Norwitz wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 7:16 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 2007 12:02 PM, Neil Toronto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On both of my systems, using -O2 reduces execution time in pystone by 9%
>>> and in pybench by 8%. It's function inlining: "-O3
>>> -fno-in
"Greg Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I think the situation with __main__ is different from __builtin__,
I effectively agreed by not disputing Guido's response ;-)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.o
On Nov 30, 2007 7:16 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 12:02 PM, Neil Toronto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On both of my systems, using -O2 reduces execution time in pystone by 9%
> > and in pybench by 8%. It's function inlining: "-O3
> > -fno-inline-functions" works j
At 06:16 PM 11/30/2007 -0500, Fred Drake wrote:
>On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> > alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
>
>
>I suspect that's indistinguishable from everyone being tired of the
On Nov 30, 2007 3:16 PM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> > alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
>
>
> I suspect that's indistinguishable from everyone b
On Nov 30, 2007 12:02 PM, Neil Toronto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On both of my systems, using -O2 reduces execution time in pystone by 9%
> and in pybench by 8%. It's function inlining: "-O3
> -fno-inline-functions" works just as well as "-O2". Removing "-g" has
> little effect on the result.
>
On Nov 30, 2007 3:59 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Reedy wrote:
> > The only problem would be if someone put
> > the incantation into a non-main module named 'main.py', but the same is
> > true today of '__main__.py'. And I would consider either a buggy practice.
>
> I often pu
Terry Reedy wrote:
> The only problem would be if someone put
> the incantation into a non-main module named 'main.py', but the same is
> true today of '__main__.py'. And I would consider either a buggy practice.
I often put the "real" main code into a separate module, so
that it gets compiled
> > On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> >> alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
> Fred Drake wrote:
> > +1 for a module named "builtin", or something similarly obscure.
On Nov 30, 2007 3:42 PM,
Fred Drake wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
>> alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
>
>
> I suspect that's indistinguishable from everyone being tired of the
> discussion, knowing tha
On Nov 30, 2007 4:40 PM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:05:18PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 2007 2:17 PM, Nicko van Someren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > +1 for __universal__
> >
> > It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:05:18PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 2:17 PM, Nicko van Someren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1 for __universal__
>
> It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
I saw it
On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
I suspect that's indistinguishable from everyone being tired of the
discussion, knowing that you're going to pick somethi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 2:17 PM, Nicko van Someren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1 for __universal__
>
> It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> alone and rename the __built
Thing is that "universal" is an adjective and we tend to use nouns
(maybe not by intention) for our modules/objects:
Sys, os, builtins, etc, are all nouns: maybe +1 for __universe__ ? But
when you phrase it that way, it doesn't quite make sense.
Have we considered special syntax for universal py
On Nov 30, 2007 2:17 PM, Nicko van Someren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 for __universal__
It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_
On 29 Nov 2007, at 14:06, Isaac Morland wrote:
>
> I wonder how much you could sell the naming rights for? i.e. call it
> __[name of sponsor]__. Python's pretty popular, such advertising
> should
> be worth something
I'm sorry, but if you call it __Microsoft_Office_2007__ I shall never
w
This looks good. Please make the appropriate changes to the PEP and to
PEP 0 to mark it as accepted.
I think the implementation is fine too (others will have to check it
more carefully) but I noticed that the promised functionality of -m
doesn't work yet: I created a file Lib/test/foo.py whose sol
On 30/11/2007, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Moore got some Cygwin developers persuaded to implement support for
> msvcr90 [1]. The coded was added a few days ago [2]. This means that
> users are still able to use MinGW to compile extensions when we switch
> to VS 2008 as defau
Paul Moore got some Cygwin developers persuaded to implement support for
msvcr90 [1]. The coded was added a few days ago [2]. This means that
users are still able to use MinGW to compile extensions when we switch
to VS 2008 as default compiler on Windows.
I'm not sure how many people are intereste
On both of my systems, using -O2 reduces execution time in pystone by 9%
and in pybench by 8%. It's function inlining: "-O3
-fno-inline-functions" works just as well as "-O2". Removing "-g" has
little effect on the result.
Systems:
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4600+, 512 KB cache (desktop)
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (11/23/07 - 11/30/07)
Tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
1323 open (+24) / 11687 closed (+11) / 13010 total (+35)
Open issues with patches: 418
Average durati
2007/11/24, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Did you change the Decimal repr to use the same format for the mantissa?
I don't understand the question. The output of repr() does not show
this internals...
> Could you also check the performance gain against the telco benchmark
> which is in th
Steve Holden wrote:
> Neil Toronto wrote:
>> Speaking of which, here's a question for everybody. I was wondering
>> whether 64 bits is necessary. It takes an hour of concerted effort -
>> nothing but "module.d = 1; del module.d" for an hour straight - to
>> overflow a 32-bit version number. Is a
Neil Toronto wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Hm.
>>
>> On my Linux box, in the trunk:
>>
>> Before the patch:
>> Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 1.16
>> This machine benchmarks at 43103.4 pystones/second
>>
>> After the patch:
>> Pystone(1.1) time for 5 passes = 1.14
>> This machine be
Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:22:03AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
>> The next step up from global would be __galactic__.
>
>Let me skip __universe[al]__ and go directly to The Ultimate
>Questions:
So maybe it should be called __42__?
Bernhard
29 matches
Mail list logo
