-On [20080413 19:59], "Martin v. Löwis" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Making suggestions on the list, and then following up with patch,
>is certainly encouraged, and happens all the time.
Here you go.
>I just think that *this* specific proposed change is more effort to
>talk
Brett Cannon schrieb:
>> +0. If we ever run out of letters for command line options to have
>> to collect -J, we have deeper problems than having to coordinate
>> with Jython whether the letter is still available.
>
> +0
Shall I remove the reservation of -J again?
Christian
> > > > Isn't that bikeshedding?
> > >
> > > No. I think "implementation-specific" is definitely more accurate,
> > > and I was hoping the suggestion might get an immediate "good idea,
> > > implemented", from somebody already looking at that code.
> >
> > It's already committed, so one
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> > > > How about "-X is reserved for implementation-specific arguments"?
> >
> > > Isn't that bikeshedding?
> >
> > No. I think "implementation-specific" is definitely more accurate,
> > and I was hoping the suggestion might get an immediate "good idea,
> > im
-On [20080413 00:47], Gregory P. Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>With gcc 4.1.3 i'm finding that profile guided optimization when trained on
>pybench or regrtest does make a measurable difference (2-5% overall time with
>10-20% on some pybench tests). I haven't run benchmarks
> > > How about "-X is reserved for implementation-specific arguments"?
>
> > Isn't that bikeshedding?
>
> No. I think "implementation-specific" is definitely more accurate,
> and I was hoping the suggestion might get an immediate "good idea,
> implemented", from somebody already looking at th
