I would be super excited for this feature, so if there's a reasonable
chance of it being picked up I don't mind doing the implementation work.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Émanuel Barry wrote:
> > As stated by Guido (and pointed out in the
Is there any further thoughts on including this in 3.6? Similar to the
recent discussion on OrderedDict namespaces for metaclasses, this would
simplify / enable a number of type factory use cases where proper
metaclasses are overkill. This feature would also be quite nice in say
pandas where the (
No problem, I did not think you were attacking me or find your
response rude.
On Wed, May 18, 2016, at 01:06 PM, Cesare Di Mauro wrote:
> If you feel like I've attacked you, I apologize: it wasn't my
> intention. Please, don't get it personal: I only reported my honest
> opinion, albeit after a
Your criticisms may very well be true. IIRC though, I wrote that pass
because what was available was not general enough. The stackdepth_walk
function made assumptions that, while true of code generated by the
current cpython frontend, were not universally true. If a goal is to
move this calculation
In the project https://github.com/zachariahreed/byteasm I mentioned on
the list earlier this month, I have a pass that to computes stack usage
for a given sequence of bytecodes. It seems to be a fair bit more
agressive than cpython. Maybe it's more generally useful. It's pure
python rather than C t
Here is something I wrote because I was also unsatisfied with byteplay's
API: https://github.com/zachariahreed/byteasm. Maybe it's useful in a
discussion of "minimum viable" api for bytecode manipulation.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.o
