Filippo Battaglia wrote:
Thanks for your answers. Sorry for the title in upper case. I didn't
want to create troubles.
:)
I've an important question for you: is it
possible that a large python module,
created using SWIG and with a hundred
of routines, makes slower the execution
(i.e. the job of
Thanks for your answers.
Sorry for the title in upper case. I didn't
want to create troubles.
:)
I've an important question for you: is it
possible that a large python module,
created using SWIG and with a hundred
of routines, makes slower the execution
(i.e. the job of ceval.c) of the Python
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (06/19/09 - 06/26/09)
Python 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.
2242 open (+17) / 15925 closed (+16) / 18167 total (+33)
Open issues with patches: 889
Average
While we are on that, I just noticed:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.1/
Has downloads for 3.1rc2, but show checksums as if for 3.1rc1
The size and checksum is correct for python-3.1rc2.msi,
distinct from that for python-3.1rc1.msi, but are labeled as rc1.
The 32-bit .msi is the only
2009/6/26 Barry Warsaw :
> I'm sure this has been discussed but I missed it. Why was this change made?
> If nothing else, it breaks many years of tradition.
I assumed it was the tradition because all the 3.0 and 2.6 candidates had "rc".
--
Regards,
Benjamin
__
On Jun 26, 2009, at 8:49 AM, benjamin.peterson wrote:
Author: benjamin.peterson
Date: Fri Jun 26 14:48:55 2009
New Revision: 73569
Log:
update release candidate shorthand
Modified:
peps/trunk/pep-0101.txt
Modified: peps/trunk/pep-0101.txt
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
