2008/5/22 Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I couldn't answer why, so I'm asking here...Is it because the
> reference counting will be complicated? Is it because it'd be
> inefficient in other way? It's something else? Or is something that
> could be done... but is not done yet?
Thank you al
> That's all fine, but then I'm missing the OpenSSL license and
> attribution notice somewhere in the installer, the README of the
> installation or elsewhere.
Good point. We need this for both the ssl module and the hashlib
module.
Bill
___
Python-Dev
Facundo Batista wrote:
A thread in PyAr raised the question that, considering that strings
are immutable, why a slice of a string is a copy and not a reference
to a part of that string.
Because it would make it too easy to accidentally keep
a large string alive via a reference to a small part
On 2008-05-20 00:46, Jesus Cea wrote:
Trent Nelson wrote:
| I downloaded the source that includes AES encryption, for no reason
| other than it was first on the list. I'm now wondering if we should
| only be importing the 'NC' source that doesn't contain any
| encryption? Jesus, does pybsddb us
On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:10:09 +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 2008-05-19 00:59, Dan Lenski wrote:
> You should probably ask such questions on the capi-sig list.
>
> To answer your question:
>
> t# requires support for the read-only 8-bit character buffer interface
> s# can use the read buffer in
>>From what I can see of the changes, you simply added a
> Lib/lib-old/Queue.py in that revision - Lib/queue.py was already
> there. But your description "Moved..." implies you did something
> slightly different (and the text of your original message on this
> thread suggests that you might have do
2008/5/22 Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I know it's a while ago but can you recall exactly what you did? Or
> can some svn guru tell me how to get svn to tell me exactly what
> operations it believes went on?
Never mind, I found out how to do this using svn dump.
Paul.
___
On 2008-05-19 00:59, Dan Lenski wrote:
Hi all,
I've written a small C extension to submit commands to SCSI devices via
Linux's sg_io driver (for a camera hacking project). The extension is
just a wrapper around a couple ioctl()'s with Pythonic exception handling
thrown in. One of my extensi
> % make
> cc -c -DNDEBUG -O -I. -IInclude -I./Include -DPy_BUILD_CORE -o
> Modules/python.o ./Modules/python.c
> "/usr/include/sys/feature_tests.h", line 353: #error: "Compiler or
> options invalid for pre-UNIX 03 X/Open applications and pre-2001
> POSIX applications"
> cc: acomp failed for
2008/5/12 Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Revision 63129 is not valid on case folding filesystems. In
> particular, this horribly breaks using hg-svn to make a local mirror
> of the Python repository:
I'm still trying to identify what breaks in converting svn to
Mercurial at around the time of y
> I would like to print the Berkeley DB release used, also.
Could that be done at build time as well?
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailma
> |> In any case, what would be the procedure to update the buildbot
> |> infraestructure?.
> |
> | You need to import the sources into the Python subversion repository;
> | I understand Trent was about to do that.
> |
> | Then you need to adjust Tools/msi/external.bat to have the slaves export
> |
> I guess we need first all buildbots updated to 4.7.25 before changing
> the setup.py to support BDB 4.7, to avoid no updated ones linking
> against (old) buggy 4.6 releases.
Why do you think so? Updating all buildbots is not feasible, atleast not
within this year.
Some machines *intentionally*
> I couldn't answer why, so I'm asking here...Is it because the
> reference counting will be complicated? Is it because it'd be
> inefficient in other way? It's something else? Or is something that
> could be done... but is not done yet?
There are two problems with that approach:
a) you may hold
> it would would also be helpfull if someone could tell me, how to locate the
> code, which causes this SEG fault
I think you already found the code; gdb tells you the exact location of
the crash. What are the values of pool and bp?
Regards,
Martin
___
Hi,
Christian Heimes wrote:
> Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Even worse, it's gone in Py3:
>
> No, it has been replaced by a better system.
>
> Try "memoryview"
I know. We are already discussing the buffer protocol on the Cython list.
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.cython.devel/1763?set_
Stefan Behnel schrieb:
> Even worse, it's gone in Py3:
No, it has been replaced by a better system.
Try "memoryview"
Christian
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregory P. Smith wrote:
| btw, I fixed the Lib/test/test_bsddb3.py file for the updated
| Lib/bsddb/test/ modules. Thats how the test suite gets run by the
| buildbots (run the test suite from a python trunk sandbox using
| "./python Lib/test/regrtes
Isaac Morland wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008, Christian Heimes wrote:
>
>> The buffer interface was designed for the slice-as-copy use case:
>>
> a = "abcdefg"
> b = buffer(a, 2, 3)
> b
>>
> str(b)
>> 'cde'
> []
>
> This answers my musing about shared slices. But it points me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
|> In any case, what would be the procedure to update the buildbot
|> infraestructure?.
|
| You need to import the sources into the Python subversion repository;
| I understand Trent was about to do that.
|
| Then you need to ad
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregory P. Smith wrote:
| On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Trent Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
|>> Trent Nelson wrote:
|>> | Gah. I just went and visited the Berkeley DB download site as
|>> | I was preparing my commit message so I could refer to
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Christian Heimes wrote:
The buffer interface was designed for the slice-as-copy use case:
a = "abcdefg"
b = buffer(a, 2, 3)
b
str(b)
'cde'
[]
This answers my musing about shared slices. But it points me at another
question: why is buffer() listed in "Non-essent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Trent Nelson wrote:
|> It is not clear to me that python 2.6/3.0 will be published with BDB 4.6
|> or 4.7 support. 4.6 has several known issues, apparently solved in 4.7.
|
| I could have sworn I heard a few people mention that "4.5 has issues,
|
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008, Facundo Batista wrote:
>>
>> A thread in PyAr raised the question that, considering that strings
>> are immutable, why a slice of a string is a copy and not a reference
>> to a part of that string.
>
> Someone
Facundo Batista schrieb:
> Hi!
>
> A thread in PyAr raised the question that, considering that strings
> are immutable, why a slice of a string is a copy and not a reference
> to a part of that string.
Because the reference approach is more complicated, harder to implement
and may lead to unexpec
On Thu, May 22, 2008, Facundo Batista wrote:
>
> A thread in PyAr raised the question that, considering that strings
> are immutable, why a slice of a string is a copy and not a reference
> to a part of that string.
Someone did a patch for this at one point, but I don't remember what
happened.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Trent Nelson wrote:
| Indeed. Where do we stand with regards to svn commit e-mails
| being sent for 'external'? DB 4.6 is ~16MB...
I just committed bsddb3 4.7.0. Please install Berkeley DB >=4.7.25.
- --
Jesus Cea Avion _/_
2008/5/22 Isaac Morland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> By contrast, the worst that can happen with no sharing is that performance
> and memory use is what you expect - the only "bad" is the apparent missed
> opportunity for optimization.
Exactly, "apparent".
Also, this could be handled like a "good writ
2008/5/22 Scott Dial <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If we changed Python to slice-by-reference, then tomorrow someone would be
> asking why it isn't slice-by-copy. There are pros and cons to both that are
Which are the cons of slice-by-reference of an immutable string?
> dependent on your application.
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Gary Herron wrote:
In fact, a slice is *not* always a copy! In at least some (simple) cases, a
slice references the original string:
s = 'abc'
t = s[:]
s is t
True
id(s)
3081872000L
id(t)
3081872000L
I think the more interesting case is where the string objects ar
2008/5/22 Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I remember some discussions... let me see... google to help... aha:
>
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-August/003224.html
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-August/003242.html
These descussions are too general,
Facundo Batista wrote:
I couldn't answer why, so I'm asking here...Is it because the
reference counting will be complicated? Is it because it'd be
inefficient in other way? It's something else? Or is something that
could be done... but is not done yet?
If we changed Python to slice-by-referenc
Facundo Batista wrote:
Hi!
A thread in PyAr raised the question that, considering that strings
are immutable, why a slice of a string is a copy and not a reference
to a part of that string.
I couldn't answer why, so I'm asking here...Is it because the
reference counting will be complicated? Is
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:28:47PM -0300, Facundo Batista wrote:
> considering that strings
> are immutable, why a slice of a string is a copy and not a reference
> to a part of that string.
I remember some discussions... let me see... google to help... aha:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/py
Hi!
A thread in PyAr raised the question that, considering that strings
are immutable, why a slice of a string is a copy and not a reference
to a part of that string.
I couldn't answer why, so I'm asking here...Is it because the
reference counting will be complicated? Is it because it'd be
ineffi
> > In any case, what would be the procedure to update the buildbot
> > infraestructure?.
> You need to import the sources into the Python subversion repository;
> I understand Trent was about to do that.
Indeed. Where do we stand with regards to svn commit e-mails being sent for
'external'? D
Fred Drake wrote:
On May 21, 2008, at 5:41 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
While a proxy class written in C would no doubt be faster than one
written in Python, one of the things I'm hoping to achieve is for the
stdlib generic proxy to serve as an example for people writing their
own new-style proxy c
hello everyone,
i'm working on the branch:
http://svn.python.org/projects/python/branches/release25-maint/
i'm trying to build a vmgen based interpreter for python:
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/vmgen
from vmgen's input file, which specifies the python's opcodes a c source is
generate
On Thu, 22 May 2008, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > I would say that writing portable C code is hard as well, aren't there
> > just more tools that help?
>
> The C compiler in particular. It already gets symbolic constants and
> struct layouts right, something that ctypes can't do (because it doesn't
>> Writing portable ctypes modules is really hard - significantly harder
>> than writing portable C code (although writing non-portable ctypes
>> code is apparently easier than writing non-portable C code).
>
> I would say that writing portable C code is hard as well, aren't there
> just more tool
40 matches
Mail list logo
