On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> So module_to_init it is unless someone can convince me the bikeshed is
> a different colour.
Whatever the name is, it should reflect what is happening during the
with statement, and more particularly that the thing will end at the
end of the
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:49 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
> Perhaps 'managed_module'?
I was just thinking the same thing.
-eric
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mai
29.05.13 21:00, Eric Snow написав(ла):
Critically sensitive performance subjects
* interpreter start-up time
* module import overhead
* attribute lookup overhead (including MRO traversal)
* function call overhead
* instance creation overhead
* dict performance (the underlying namespace type)
* tu
On 29.05.2013 21:19, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:59:21 +0300
> Carlos Nepomuceno wrote:
>>
>> [1] "pybench - run the standard Python PyBench benchmark suite. This is
>> considered
>> an unreliable, unrepresentative benchmark; do not base decisions
>> off it. It is i
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:56 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:10:44 +0200, Antoine Pitrou
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:55:01 -0400
>> Brett Cannon wrote:
>> > > Perhaps 'managed_module'?
>> >
>> > managed_module is better than managed_initialization.
>>
>> I don't under
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:59:21 +0300
> Carlos Nepomuceno wrote:
>>
>> [1] "pybench - run the standard Python PyBench benchmark suite. This is
>> considered
>> an unreliable, unrepresentative benchmark; do not base decisions
>> off
Hi,
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:59:21 +0300
Carlos Nepomuceno wrote:
>
> [1] "pybench - run the standard Python PyBench benchmark suite. This is
> considered
> an unreliable, unrepresentative benchmark; do not base decisions
> off it. It is included only for completeness."
"unrepresentative" is th
Hi,
On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:00:44 -0600
Eric Snow wrote:
> The devguide doesn't have anything on performance testing that I could
> find.
See http://bugs.python.org/issue17449
> Tools I'm aware of:
> * pybench (relatively limited in real-world usefulness)
> * timeit module (for quick comparisio
> Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:00:44 -0600
> From: ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com
> To: python-dev@python.org
> Subject: [Python-Dev] performance testing recommendations in devguide
>
> The devguide doesn't have anything on performance testing that I could
> find.
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:10:44 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:55:01 -0400
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > > Perhaps 'managed_module'?
> >
> > managed_module is better than managed_initialization.
>
> I don't understand how it's "managed". "manage", "manager", etc. is the
> kind o
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:10:44 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:55:01 -0400
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > > Perhaps 'managed_module'?
> >
> > managed_module is better than managed_initialization.
>
> I don't understand how it's "managed". "manage", "manager", etc. is the
> kind o
On May 29, 2013, at 01:01 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>PEP 432 is also related, as it includes the "pysystem" proposal [1]
>(an alternate Python CLI that will default to -Es behaviour, but is
>otherwise similar to the standard "python" interpreter).
I *knew* this was being specified somewhere, but I
On May 28, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Note that the Gentoo example also takes into account versions that might act
>> differently based on the interpreter's implementation. So a -python3 suffix
>> may not be enough. Maybe now we're getting into PEP 425 compatibility tag
>> terr
On May 28, 2013, at 08:02 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>On Tue, 28 May 2013 13:27:18 -0400
>Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On May 25, 2013, at 09:53 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>> >How about always running the version specific targets, e.g.
>> >nosetests-2.7?
>>
>> We have nosetests-2.7 and nosetests3 in
On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:55:01 -0400
Brett Cannon wrote:
> > Perhaps 'managed_module'?
>
> managed_module is better than managed_initialization.
I don't understand how it's "managed". "manage", "manager", etc. is the
kind of dumb words everybody uses when they don't manage (!) to explain
what they
The devguide doesn't have anything on performance testing that I could
find. We do have a number of relatively useful resources in this
space though, like pybench and (eventually) speed.python.org. I'd
like to add a page to the devguide on performance testing, including
an explanation of our perf
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:49 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:25:45 -0400, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> In case you want to suggest a name, the context manager returns the
>> module that should be initialized/loaded. So typical usage will be::
>>
>> class Loader:
>> def load_m
On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:25:45 -0400, Brett Cannon wrote:
> In case you want to suggest a name, the context manager returns the
> module that should be initialized/loaded. So typical usage will be::
>
> class Loader:
> def load_module(self, fullname):
> with importlib.util.module_to_ini
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 00:59:02 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> > I am willing to compromise to module_to_initialize, module_to_init, or
>> > module_to_load. Pick one. =)
>>
>> I see th
Le Wed, 29 May 2013 11:58:21 -0400,
"R. David Murray" a écrit :
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 00:59:02 +1000, Nick Coghlan
> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Brett Cannon
> > wrote:
> > > I am willing to compromise to module_to_initialize,
> > > module_to_init, or module_to_load. Pick one.
On Thu, 30 May 2013 00:59:02 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > I am willing to compromise to module_to_initialize, module_to_init, or
> > module_to_load. Pick one. =)
>
> I see this as *really* similar to a database transaction, and those
> st
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I am willing to compromise to module_to_initialize, module_to_init, or
> module_to_load. Pick one. =)
I see this as *really* similar to a database transaction, and those
start with "session.begin()".
Could you tolerate "with begin_module_in
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> with initialise_module(name) as m:
>>> # Module initialisation code goes here
>>> # Module is rolled back if initialisation fails
>>
>> But you're not initializing
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> with initialise_module(name) as m:
>> # Module initialisation code goes here
>> # Module is rolled back if initialisation fails
>
> But you're not initializing the module; more like getting the module, either
> new or fro
On Tue, 28 May 2013 22:20:33 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
> > So, my point is that the information on what python code is actually
> > being called ought to be in the stub script file, as a comment if
> > nothing else, for discoverability reasons.
> >
> > I'm not bothered enough to work up a patch,
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Anway, I'll come up with some specific patches and put them on the
> tracker, starting with moving the source files for the binary
> executables and making the simpler pythonrun/lifecycle split. I can
> look into splitting lifecycle.c into se
On May 29, 2013 1:09 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >> (FWIW, I think "ModuleManager" is a rather bad name :-)
> >
> > I'm open to suggestions, but the thing does manage the module so it at
> > least makes sense.
>
> I suggest ModuleInitialis
27 matches
Mail list logo
