[Antoine Pitrou]
> Alexandre Vassalotti (thanks a lot!) has recently finalized his work on
> the PEP 3154 implementation - pickle protocol 4.
>
> I think it would be good to get the PEP and the implementation accepted
> for 3.4. As far as I can say, this has been a low-controvery proposal,
> and it
On Nov 17, 2013, at 11:05 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
>My problem with -O and -OO is that their arguments are very circular.
>Indeed, I understand the need why you would want in certain and
>limited cases to remove both docstrings and asserts. So some options
>for doing so are ok. But a lot of a
17.11.2013 23:05, Guido van Rossum wrote:
The correct rule should be "don't use assert (the statement) to check
for valid user input" and the stated reason should be that the assert
statement was *designed* to be disabled globally, not to be a
shorthand for "if not X: raise (mumble) Y". A coroll
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 16.11.13 21:15, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
>
>> In a (private) discussion about PEP 428 and pathlib, Guido proposed
>> that maybe NTPath should be renamed to WindowsPath, since the name is
>> more likely to stay relevant in the middle ter
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> My problem with -O and -OO is that their arguments are very circular.
> Indeed, I understand the need why you would want in certain and
> limited cases to remove both docstrings and asserts. So some options
> for doing so are ok. But a l
Gregory Salvan wrote:
I believe the point of removing assertions is also to avoid throwing
unhandled developper errors to end-user
I'm not sure I buy that. An assert is saying that something
should never happen. If it does happen, either it's going
to lead to an exception further down the track
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2013, at 05:14 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
>>2013/11/16 Maciej Fijalkowski :
>>> Can I see some writeup how -OO benefit embedded devices?
>>
>>You get smaller .pyc files. In an embedded device, the whole OS may be
>>written in a sma
On Nov 17, 2013, at 05:14 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>2013/11/16 Maciej Fijalkowski :
>> Can I see some writeup how -OO benefit embedded devices?
>
>You get smaller .pyc files. In an embedded device, the whole OS may be
>written in a small memory, something like 64 MB or smaller. Removing
>doctring
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:14:38 +0100, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> 2013/11/16 Maciej Fijalkowski :
> > Can I see some writeup how -OO benefit embedded devices?
>
> You get smaller .pyc files. In an embedded device, the whole OS may be
> written in a small memory, something like 64 MB or smaller. Removi
I believe the point of removing assertions is also to avoid throwing
unhandled developper errors to end-user and not only "performance".
It's like "raise" without "try" block.
It's certainly because I consider "assert" as a developper util, providing
a concrete documentation about methods signatur
On Saturday, November 16, 2013, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:16:48AM -0500, Donald Stufft wrote:
> > Personally I think that none of the -O* should be removing asserts. It
> feels
> > like a foot gun to me. I’ve seen more than one codebase that would be
> > completely broken
2013/11/16 Maciej Fijalkowski :
> Can I see some writeup how -OO benefit embedded devices?
You get smaller .pyc files. In an embedded device, the whole OS may be
written in a small memory, something like 64 MB or smaller. Removing
doctrings help to fit in 64 MB.
I don't know if dropping "assert"
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2013 8:58 AM, "Eli Bendersky" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Eric Snow
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If you look at the Python a
On Nov 17, 2013 8:58 AM, "Eli Bendersky" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Eric Snow
wrote:
>>>
>>> If you look at the Python and Modules directories in the cpython repo,
>>> you'll find modules in Python/ and co
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Eric Snow wrote:
>
>> If you look at the Python and Modules directories in the cpython repo,
>> you'll find modules in Python/ and core files (like python.c and
>> main.c) in Modules/. (It's like parkin
Le 17/11/2013 12:27, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
What I would like to know is if people *knowingly* add costly asserts
to performance-critical code, with the intent of disabling them at
runtime using -OO.
Yes, I have knowingly added costly asserts to code with the intend of
disabling them at runt
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:35:21AM +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> You didn't answer my question: did you actually use -OO in production,
> or not? Saying that -OO could have helped you optimize something you
> didn't care about isn't a very strong argument for -OO :)
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood yo
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:27:24 +1100
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:00:50AM +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:04:43 +1100
> > Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 04:46:00PM +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree that conflatin
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:00:50AM +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:04:43 +1100
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 04:46:00PM +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that conflating the two doesn't help the discussion.
> > > While removing docstrings
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:04:43 +1100
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 04:46:00PM +0100, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> > I agree that conflating the two doesn't help the discussion.
> > While removing docstrings may be beneficial on memory-constrained
> > devices, I can't remember a sing
20 matches
Mail list logo
