On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Chris Bergstresser writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Ben Finney
>> wrote:
>> > Neal Norwitz writes:
>> >> Who knows, someone might even write a book about Fusil someday
>> >> about a topic as obscure as Beautiful Testing. :-)
>>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 15:54, Ezio Melotti wrote:
> I noticed that in the py3k doc 'mktemp' is marked as deprecated since Python
> 2.3 [1], but the function is still there and doesn't raise any warning.
> Looking at the source I found out that there is a warning, but it is
> commented out [2], th
On 27Jan2010 23:08, Nick Coghlan wrote:
| Cameron Simpson wrote:
| > The proposed change to make pop(0) O(1) involves adding a base offset
| > to the internal list implementation. Doesn't that incur a (small)
| > overhead to _every_ list operation? Doesn't that weaken "list" as the
| > "as efficie
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Steve Howell wrote:
> The statement was meant 99% tongue in cheek. Like probably 99.99% of Python
> programmers, I use lists all the time; that's why I want them to be more
> versatile.
>
> There's also a 1% element of truth to the statement. To the extent that
Eric Smith wrote:
This discussion probably belongs on the distutils list.
Yes, the discussion should be.
I possibly should clarify that this is "a list of questions that are of
interest as a topic" and did not intend for them to be answered here.
I tried not to go into specific details fo
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
> "Python lists implement a pretty useless data structure"
>
> It's very difficult for ideas to gain traction when they
> contain such
> useless, and obviously wrong, rhetoric. There's an
> enormous body of
> code out there that begs to disagree with
This discussion probably belongs on the distutils list.
Ron Adam wrote:
Can I make my efforts in developing a (module, package, script, or
application) a lot easier if I keep certain things in mind? Are there
any best practices I should keep in mind if I intend to distribute my work?
Are ther
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Steve Howell wrote:
> I am not sure why Python lists get all the syntax sugar and promotion over
>deque, when in reality, Python lists implement a pretty useless data
>structure. Python lists are a glorification of a C array built on top of a
>memory-upward-bia
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Steve Howell wrote:
>
>
> --- On Wed, 1/27/10, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
>> From: Raymond Hettinger
>
>> * the current design encourages people to use
>> the right data structure for a given need. the
>> proposed change makes the trades-off murky and
>> implem
David Lyon wrote:
Nick Coghlan:
I'd like to see Python 3+ be more suitable for full distributable
applications over 2.X and earlier.
Out of curiousity, have you tried experimenting with the zipfile
execution capabilities in 2.6/3.1? A major part of that was to make
multi-file Python applic
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> From: Raymond Hettinger
> * the current design encourages people to use
> the right data structure for a given need. the
> proposed change makes the trades-off murky and
> implementation dependent.
Are you saying that the current slowness of
On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, deque indexing for small deques is already O(1)
>> and somewhat fast. You only get O(n) degradation
>> (with a small contant factor) on large deques.
>>
>
> Hi.
>
> For small dequeues (smaller than a constant), you have to ha
>
> FWIW, deque indexing for small deques is already O(1)
> and somewhat fast. You only get O(n) degradation
> (with a small contant factor) on large deques.
>
Hi.
For small dequeues (smaller than a constant), you have to have O(1)
operations, by definition :-)
Cheers,
fijal
___
I noticed that in the py3k doc 'mktemp' is marked as deprecated since
Python 2.3 [1], but the function is still there and doesn't raise any
warning. Looking at the source I found out that there is a warning, but
it is commented out [2], the reason being because they are "too annoying".
There was
On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Steve Howell wrote:
>
> --- On Wed, 1/27/10, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
>> From: Raymond Hettinger
>> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
>> To: "Martin v. Löwis"
>> Cc: "Steve Howell" , python-dev@python.org
>> Date: Wednesday,
> From: Antoine Pitrou
> gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > AFAICT, the performance of the proposal:
> >
> > * increases space requirements by a small fixed
> amount
>
> Well, given my proposal (assuming it turns out ok) it
> doesn't.
>
> > * s.append() performance slightly degraded.
>
> Why?
>
A
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Daniel Stutzbach
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> I'm actually wondering if you could apply some of the implementation
>> strategies discussed here to grant O(1) random access to arbitrary
>> elements of a deque.
>>
>> I haven't
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Daniel Stutzbach
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>>
>> Also, am not sure if this affects psyco or the other
>> implementations such as Jython which may implement
>> lists in terms of existing Java containers.
>
> Or Unladen Swa
Raymond Hettinger gmail.com> writes:
>
> AFAICT, the performance of the proposal:
>
> * increases space requirements by a small fixed amount
Well, given my proposal (assuming it turns out ok) it doesn't.
> * s.append() performance slightly degraded.
Why?
> * the resize performance doesn't wo
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> From: Raymond Hettinger
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
> To: "Martin v. Löwis"
> Cc: "Steve Howell" , python-dev@python.org
> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 1:49 PM
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:38 AM, M
Alex Gaynor wrote:
> I don't see how that's possible. The linked list is a pretty well
> known data structure and arbitrary lookups are O(n) in it. Using the
> unrolled-linked-list data structure python uses you can make it faster
> by a constant factor, but not O(1). There are other structures
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Raymond Hettinger <
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, am not sure if this affects psyco or the other
> implementations such as Jython which may implement
> lists in terms of existing Java containers.
>
Or Unladen Swallow. I'm -1 on mucking with any of t
Are you free to chat about this in IRC?
I completely unconvinced that there are use cases for
wanting face random access to the i-th element of a large deque
that is changing sizes on each end. The meaning of the
20th index changes as the data moves. It becomes pointless
to store indices to movi
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I'm actually wondering if you could apply some of the implementation
> strategies discussed here to grant O(1) random access to arbitrary
> elements of a deque.
>
> I haven't looked at the deque code in a long time, but I believe the
> memory
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Steve Howell wrote:
>> There is also the possibility that my initial patch can be refined by
>> somebody smarter than myself to eliminate the particular tradeoff.
>> In fact, Antoine Pitrou already suggested an approach, although I
>> agree th
Steve Howell wrote:
> There is also the possibility that my initial patch can be refined by
> somebody smarter than myself to eliminate the particular tradeoff.
> In fact, Antoine Pitrou already suggested an approach, although I
> agree that it kind of pushes the boundary of sanity. :)
I'm actuall
On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Lists are indeed used *everywhere* and *vast* quantities, which is
>> why optimizations on list operations are worthwhile to pursue.
>
> Unfortunately, the proposed change is a pessimisation, not an
> optimisation. We probably shouldn't dis
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> From: Antoine Pitrou
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
> To: python-dev@python.org
> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 12:41 PM
> Le mercredi 27 janvier 2010 à 11:49
> -0800, Steve Howell a écrit :
> > A slightly
This is a repost from a posting I sent last August. One of the issues
(the hg-eol extension) is largely resolved, so I'm only asking for
help on the other issue.
In this thread, I'd like to collect things that ought to be done
but where Dirkjan has indicated that he would prefer if somebody else
d
Le mercredi 27 janvier 2010 à 11:49 -0800, Steve Howell a écrit :
> A slightly more sane alternative would be to leave ob_size and ob_item
> alone with their current semantics, and then replace allocated with
> self->excess, where
>
> self->excess == excess_above * 256 + excess_below.
Or we cou
On 27 January 2010 08:37, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 14:46 -0800, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Hanno Schlichting
> wrote:
> > > I'm a relative outsider to core development (I'm just a Plone release
> > > manager), but'll allow myself a couple of
Chris Bergstresser writes:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
> > Neal Norwitz writes:
> >> Who knows, someone might even write a book about Fusil someday
> >> about a topic as obscure as Beautiful Testing. :-)
> >
> > Your suggested title is already taken, though, for exac
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 11:34 -0800, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Collin Winter
> wrote:
> > We absolutely do not want CPython to include a copy of LLVM in its
> > source tree. Unladen Swallow has done this to make it easier to pick
> > up changes to LLVM's codebase as
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> From: Antoine Pitrou
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
> To: python-dev@python.org
> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 6:15 AM
> Nick Coghlan
> gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > The big practical concern is actually t
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Collin Winter wrote:
> We absolutely do not want CPython to include a copy of LLVM in its
> source tree. Unladen Swallow has done this to make it easier to pick
> up changes to LLVM's codebase as we make them, but this is not a
> viable model for CPython's long-te
> In my mind Python's lists should have the same performance
> characteristics as the paper list (or better).
I think you'll have to adjust your mind then. People have
proposed various data structures that *do* work efficiently as
paper lists. So if you want a paper list, use one of them, rather
t
> Lists are indeed used *everywhere* and *vast* quantities, which is
> why optimizations on list operations are worthwhile to pursue.
Unfortunately, the proposed change is a pessimisation, not an
optimisation. We probably shouldn't discuss it further, at least not
until a PEP gets written by its p
Hi William,
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:02 AM, William Dode wrote:
> The startup time and memory comsumption are a limitation of llvm that
> their developers plan to resolve or is it only specific to the current
> python integration ? I mean the work to correct this is more on U-S or
> on llvm ?
Hi David,
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:37 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
> As a downstream distributor of Python, a major pain point for me is when
> Python embeds a copy of a library's source code, rather than linking
> against a system library (zlib, libffi and expat spring to mind): if
> bugs (e
On 27-01-2010, Collin Winter wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:26 AM, William Dode wrote:
>> Hi (as a simple user),
>>
>> I'd like to know why you didn't followed the same way as V8 Javascript,
>> or the opposite, why for V8 they didn't choose llvm ?
>>
>> I imagine that startup t
David> As a downstream distributor of Python, a major pain point for me
David> is when Python embeds a copy of a library's source code, rather
David> than linking against a system library (zlib, libffi and expat
David> spring to mind): if bugs (e.g. security issues) arise in a
Hi William,
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:26 AM, William Dode wrote:
> Hi (as a simple user),
>
> I'd like to know why you didn't followed the same way as V8 Javascript,
> or the opposite, why for V8 they didn't choose llvm ?
>
> I imagine that startup time and memory was also critical for V8.
Start
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Virgil Dupras wrote:
>
> Why is this thread still going? It seems to me that the
> case for this
> change is very weak. Lists, like dicts and tuples, are
> used
> *everywhere* and in *vast* quantities. Making them grow by
> 4 or 8
> bytes each for such a corner case can't be
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
> From: Daniel Stutzbach
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
> To: "Steve Howell"
> Cc: "John Arbash Meinel" , python-dev@python.org
> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 8:20 AM
> On Wed, Jan 27,
> 2010 at 9:55 AM,
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 14:46 -0800, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> > I'm a relative outsider to core development (I'm just a Plone release
> > manager), but'll allow myself a couple of questions. Feel free to
> > ignore them, if you think they
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Steve Howell wrote:
> --- On Wed, 1/27/10, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>
>> From: John Arbash Meinel
>> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
>> To: "Steve Howell"
>> Cc: "Guido van Rossum" , "Nick Coghlan"
>> , python-dev@python.o
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Neal Norwitz writes:
>> I definitely hope you continue to find and fix problems in Python. It
>> helps everyone who uses Python even those who will never know to thank
>> you. Who knows, someone might even write a book about Fusil someday
>> ab
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Steve Howell wrote:
> Fair enough, but that's still wasteful of memory, keeping around a bunch of
> None elements because you can't inexpensively delete them.
>
Even if there are many references to it, there is only one None element.
--
Daniel Stutzbach, Ph.D.
P
> On 27/01/2010 13:04, Michael Foord wrote:
>> Installers aren't built into windows.
>>
>>
> The infrastructure for building and using msi installers are part of
> Windows and the Windows development environment. For example:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa370834%28VS.85%29.asp
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> From: John Arbash Meinel
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
> To: "Steve Howell"
> Cc: "Guido van Rossum" , "Nick Coghlan"
> , python-dev@python.org
> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 7:45 AM
>
> > Right n
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 16:24, David Lyon wrote:
> Think how useful it would be to ship Django or Plone from a zip box...
Plone has installers, and is very easily installed on Windows, for
those who want to try it.
For real production installations you don't want that kind of
installations for P
> Right now the Python programmer looking to aggressively delete elements from
> the top of a list has to consider the tradeoff that the operation takes O(N)
> time and would possibly churn his memory caches with the O(N) memmove
> operation. In some cases, the Python programmer would only hav
At 01:08 AM 1/27/2010 -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Of course, if you want to create a ZIP named .py package that is an
application installer, you could do that, too. It might be handy
for the case where not everything in the application can be a .py,
.pyc, or .pyo... shared libraries cannot b
Hi Nick,
> I believe you're confused about what distutils is for.
Tell me..
> It generates
> platform independent metadata that can be used to create platform
> specific installers. It also generates some platform independent Python
> specific installation formats that are useful for developers,
--- On Tue, 1/26/10, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> From: Guido van Rossum
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
> To: "Steve Howell"
> Cc: "Nick Coghlan" , python-dev@python.org
> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 12:57 PM
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:46 PM,
> Steve
Hi (as a simple user),
I'd like to know why you didn't followed the same way as V8 Javascript,
or the opposite, why for V8 they didn't choose llvm ?
I imagine that startup time and memory was also critical for V8.
thanks
--
William Dodé - http://flibuste.net
Informaticien Indépendant
__
On 27/01/2010 13:04, David Lyon wrote:
On 27/01/2010 11:21, Michael Foord wrote:
.. If a Python programmer wants
to create an application that is properly 'installed' on Windows then
the *right* thing to do is to create an installer - and that uses
infrastructure not provided by a lang
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 14:23, David Lyon wrote:
> We even get to install a python package directly from our
> browser using this scheme. I don't understand why anybody
> wouldn't want that.
So, go ahead, make it happen. No one is stopping you.
--
Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok
http:
Daniel Stutzbach stutzbachenterprises.com> writes:
>
>
> I don't think your analogy works, unless you recopy your to-do lists whenever
> you complete a task in the middle of the list.
I think his analogy suggests that his to-do list is a doubly-linked list ;)
Or perhaps an array with lazy dele
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>
> The big practical concern is actually the memory cost of adding yet
> another pointer (potentially 8 bytes of data) to every list object, even
> empty ones.
It needn't be, actually. Why?
You only need to store this other pointer when you have an orphaned area
Glenn Linderman, 27.01.2010 10:13:
> As a newcomer to python, I must say that I wouldn't expect a list to be
> like an array. I'd expect it more to be like a list... many
> implementations of lists (linked lists, in particular) make it O(1) to
> add to the front or back. An array can be used to r
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
> From: Daniel Stutzbach
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
> To: "Steve Howell"
> Cc: python-dev@python.org
> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 5:32 AM
> On Wed, Jan 27,
> 2010 at 7:13 AM, Steve Howell
> wrote:
David Lyon wrote:
> Installers aren't built into windows.
Umm, yeah they are. msi's don't install themselves.
> Since Python has distutils, and it builds installers, why
> shouldn't we be using that? (apart from the fact that it
> is slightly broken)
I believe you're confused about what distutil
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Steve Howell wrote:
> My concept of Python lists is that they should have at least the same
> performance characteristics as an ordinary to-do list that you make with
> pencil, paper, and an eraser.
>
> When you complete the first task on your to-do list, you can
> Nick wrote:
>> The only one thing I have to say about that is that it makes
>> embedding of .py files recursive.
>
> No it doesn't. The mechanisms involved for processing the top-level
> zipfile and those for processing the .py text files within that zipfile
> are completely different.
Well, if
--- On Tue, 1/26/10, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> From: Cameron Simpson
> | The idea that CPython should not be improved because it
> would spoil
> | programmers strikes me as a thin, even desparate
> objection.
>
> Hey, I even used the word "thin" to describe my concern!
>
> My point was that I l
On 26 Jan 2010, at 17:09 , Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
>>> Why can't we just be like the rest of the universe and have one
>>> icon type for packages and one icon type for applications.
>>>
>>> Double click them and they get filed in the right place.
>>>
>>
>> What platform files things in the rig
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> As a newcomer to python, I must say that I wouldn't expect
> a list to be like an array. I'd expect it more to be
> like a list... many implementations of lists (linked lists,
> in particular) make it O(1) to add to the front or
> back. An array can
> On 27/01/2010 11:21, Michael Foord wrote:
> .. If a Python programmer wants
> to create an application that is properly 'installed' on Windows then
> the *right* thing to do is to create an installer - and that uses
> infrastructure not provided by a language, but that is built into
> Windows. T
Cameron Simpson wrote:
> The proposed change to make pop(0) O(1) involves adding a base offset
> to the internal list implementation. Doesn't that incur a (small)
> overhead to _every_ list operation? Doesn't that weaken "list" as the
> "as efficient as possible" implementation of choice for "array
Yesterday, I said:
On approximately 1/25/2010 9:27 PM, came the following characters
from the keyboard of David Lyon:
Firstly, it doesn't create create desktop shortcuts - sorry users
need those. Where do the programs go?
So let's say that the .zip file was dropped onto the Desktop or
start
David Lyon wrote:
> Glen wrote:
>
>> So let's further say that the .zip file was named .py, instead, but was
>> a .zip internally.
>
> The only one thing I have to say about that is that it makes
> embedding of .py files recursive.
No it doesn't. The mechanisms involved for processing the top-le
David Lyon wrote:
> Being the purist that I am I still long for the day when I
> can see a python package in my file manager with a proper
> icon. Icons only cost $400 to get done professionally at
> a graphic artist. That's roughly the same as a round of
> drinks at a python conference.
If a non-
On 27/01/2010 11:21, David Lyon wrote:
Glen wrote:
So let's further say that the .zip file was named .py, instead, but was
a .zip internally.
So this cures the icon too, maybe you realized that.
It takes it to 80% cured.
Being the purist that I am I still long for
>> Glen wrote:
>>> So let's further say that the .zip file was named .py, instead, but was
>>> a .zip internally.
>>>
>
> So this cures the icon too, maybe you realized that.
It takes it to 80% cured.
Being the purist that I am I still long for the day when I
can see a python package in my file
On approximately 1/26/2010 7:50 PM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Cameron Simpson:
My point was that I look on python builtins like list and dict as highly
optimised, highly efficient facilities. That means that I expect a "list"
to be very very much like a linear array as on
On approximately 1/26/2010 7:35 PM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of David Lyon:
Glen wrote:
So let's say that the .zip file was dropped onto the Desktop or start
menu. It would have an icon, then.
It would have an icon. But nothing to identify it as a python
appli
Neal Norwitz writes:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Victor Stinner
> wrote:
Along with others expressed here, you have my warm thanks, Victor, for
your continuing efforts at fuzz testing Python and especially for
careful reporting of the discovered bugs.
> I definitely hope you continue to
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
>
> Interaction with the Python developers
> ==
>
> I open an issue for each bug found in CPython. I describe how to reproduce it
> and try to write a patch. I have learn to always write an unit test, useful
79 matches
Mail list logo
