On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:02:29 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
If we do go this path, then we should backport the full fix (i.e.
accepting None to indicate repeating forever), rather than just a
partial fix.
That is, I'm OK with either not backporting anything at all, or
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:01:08 -0800
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 01/26/2014 08:40 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Vajrasky Kok
sky@speaklikeaking.com mailto:sky@speaklikeaking.com wrote:
In case we are taking not backporting
On 27/01/2014 01:52, Nick Coghlan wrote:
In 3.5, that will be passing None, rather than -1. For those proposing
to change the maintenance releases, how should a user relying on this
misbehaviour update their code to handle it?
I'm -1 on using None. The code currently rejects anything except
Hi,
I'm working for eNovance on the asyncio module, the goal is to use it
in the huge OpenStack project (2.5 millions line of code) which
currently uses eventlet. I'm trying to fix remaining issues in the
asyncio module before Python 3.4 final.
The asyncio project is very active but discussions
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:45:37 +0100
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
- Tulip #111: StreamReader.readexactly() now raises an
IncompleteReadError if the
end of stream is reached before we received enough bytes, instead of returning
less bytes than requested.
Why not simply
2014-01-27 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:45:37 +0100
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
- Tulip #111: StreamReader.readexactly() now raises an
IncompleteReadError if the
end of stream is reached before we received enough bytes, instead of
returning
On 27 January 2014 10:55, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-01-27 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:45:37 +0100
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
- Tulip #111: StreamReader.readexactly() now raises an
IncompleteReadError if the
2014-01-27 Gustavo Carneiro gjcarne...@gmail.com:
Why not simply EOFError?
IncompleteReadError has two additionnal attributes:
- partial: incomplete received bytes
- expected: total number of expected bytes (n parameter of readexactly)
I prefer to use a different exception to ensure that
On 01/27/2014 01:39 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:01:08 -0800
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 01/26/2014 08:40 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Vajrasky Kok
sky@speaklikeaking.com mailto:sky@speaklikeaking.com wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 04:01:02 -0800
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 01/27/2014 01:39 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:01:08 -0800
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 01/26/2014 08:40 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:26 PM,
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I would say not backport at all. The security threat is highly
theoretical. If someone blindly accepts user values for repeat(), the
user value can just as well be a very large positive with similar
effects (e.g.
27.01.14 12:55, Victor Stinner написав(ла):
IncompleteReadError has two additionnal attributes:
- partial: incomplete received bytes
- expected: total number of expected bytes (n parameter of readexactly)
This looks similar to http.client.IncompleteRead.
On 01/27/2014 01:47 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 27/01/2014 01:52, Nick Coghlan wrote:
In 3.5, that will be passing None, rather than -1. For those proposing
to change the maintenance releases, how should a user relying on this
misbehaviour update their code to handle it?
I'm -1 on using
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:22:53 +0800
Vajrasky Kok sky@speaklikeaking.com wrote:
from itertools import repeat
list(repeat('a', 2**31))
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
MemoryError
Sure, just adjust the number to fit the available memory (here, 2**29
On 27 January 2014 22:29, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:22:53 +0800
Vajrasky Kok sky@speaklikeaking.com wrote:
from itertools import repeat
list(repeat('a', 2**31))
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
MemoryError
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 04:29:04AM -0800, Larry Hastings wrote:
The code currently has semantics that cannot be accurately represented
in a Python signature. We could do one of three things:
1) Do nothing, and don't allow inspect.Signature to produce a signature
for the function. This
On 01/27/2014 04:56 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote (rearranged slightly so I
could make my points in order):
I'm confused... you seem to be saying that you are *against* changing
the behaviour of repeat so that:
repeat(x, -1)
and
repeat(x, times=-1)
behave the same. Is that actually
2014-01-27 Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com:
27.01.14 12:55, Victor Stinner написав(ла):
IncompleteReadError has two additionnal attributes:
- partial: incomplete received bytes
- expected: total number of expected bytes (n parameter of readexactly)
This looks similar to
On 27/01/2014 12:56, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
As it stands now, the documentation is internally contradictory. In
one part of the documentation, it gives a clear indication that
times is None should select the repeat forever behaviour. In
another part of the documentation, it fails to mention
Hi,
I'm surprised: marshal.dumps() doesn't raise an error if you pass an
invalid version. In fact, Python 3.3 only supports versions 0, 1 and
2. If you pass 3, it will use the version 2. (Same apply for version
99.)
Python 3.4 has two new versions: 3 and 4. The version 3 shares common
object
On 27 January 2014 15:35, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Version 2 is the fastest in Python 3.3 and 3.4, but version 4 with
Python 3.4 produces the smallest file.
Which version is used when creating pyc files? This benchmark might
suggest that version 2 is the best...
Paul
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:35, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Version 2 is the fastest in Python 3.3 and 3.4, but version 4 with
Python 3.4 produces the smallest file.
Which version is used when creating pyc
Hi,
I tested the latest beta from 3.4 (b3) and noticed there is a new marshal
protocol version 3.
The documentation is a little silent about the new features, not going into
detail.
I've run a performance test with the new protocol version and noticed the
new version is two times slower in
Am 27.01.2014 13:12, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 04:01:02 -0800
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 01/27/2014 01:39 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:01:08 -0800
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 01/26/2014 08:40 PM, Alexander Belopolsky
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Victor Stinner
victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
- asyncio.IncompleReadError.expected is the total expected size, not
the remaining size
Why not be consistent with the meaning of
http.client.IncompleteRead.expected? The current meaning can be
recovered via
Thanks Victor for improving this.
I also have to note, version 3 is only in the case of tuple in tuple
slower. If you use a flat tuple it is faster than version 2.
So I asked for this corner case and thought the recursion detection or
something else has a huge cost.
For pyc files, I think the
27.01.14 17:35, Victor Stinner написав(ла):
Python 3.4 has two new versions: 3 and 4. The version 3 shares common
object references, the version 4 adds short tuples and short strings
(produce smaller files).
Why we need two new versions added in one Python release?
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
I apologize for not making myself clear. But that's part of what I meant,
yes: we should preserve the existing behavior of times=-1 when passed in by
position or by keyword. However, we should *also* add a deprecation
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Sure, just adjust the number to fit the available memory (here, 2**29
does the trick).
I get your point. But strangely enough, I can still recover from
list(repeat('a', 2**29)). It only slows down my computer. I can ^Z
On 01/27/2014 06:00 PM, Vajrasky Kok wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
I apologize for not making myself clear. But that's part of what I meant,
yes: we should preserve the existing behavior of times=-1 when passed in by
position or by keyword.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
While it's a bug, it's a very minor bug. As Python 3.4 release manager, my
position is: Python 3.4 is in beta, so let's not change semantics for
purity's sakes now. I'm -0.5 on adding times=None right now, and until
On 01/27/2014 06:26 PM, Vajrasky Kok wrote:
So I believe the doc fix is required then.
I propose the docstring should describe only supported behavior, and the
docs in the manual should mention the unsupported behavior. However, I'm
interested in Raymond's take, as he's the original author
Hi there.
I think you should modify your program to marshal (and load) a compiled module.
This is where the optimizations in versions 3 and 4 become important.
K
-Original Message-
From: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev-
bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org] On Behalf Of Victor
33 matches
Mail list logo
