Josiah Carlson wrote:
> I had hoped that there would be a response to my second (and I believe
> more applicable statement); "if the feature is really only useful for
> generally trivial cases *without* the feature, then making them even
> more trivial, I think, is a bit of over optimization."
It
[Jack Diederich]
>> PyObject_MALLOC does a good job of reusing small allocations but it
>> can't quite manage the same speed as a free list, especially for things that
>> have some extra setup involved (tuples have a free list for each length).
[Martin v. Löwis]
> I would question that statement,
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> I had hoped that there would be a response to my second (and I believe
> more applicable statement); "if the feature is really only useful for
> generally trivial cases *without* the feature, then making them even
> more trivial, I think, is a bit of over optimization."
I
Talin wrote:
> To put it another way - I am an advocate of applying Claude Shannon's
> theory of information to language design. The highest level of
> compression should be used for expressions that occur the most frequently.
I believe the proposal in question would cause no
net worsening in t
Josiah> As for a solution, I find the "global means 'not local'"
Josiah> proposition is the least undesireable of the possibilities. It
Josiah> suffers from a change in semantics and potential name masking
Josiah> issues...
Pychecker and PyLint both already identify cases where bu
> I don't think "trivial" is the right word to use here,
> since it implies something that's of so little importance
> that it can be ignored. But the simple cases are precisely
> the ones where this wart hurts the most, so we can't
> ignore them.
I'd like to inject an example that might help make
Tim Peters wrote:
> With current trunk that printed
>
> [2.9363677646013846, 2.9489729031005703, 2.9689538729183949]
>
> After changing
>
> #define MAXSAVEDTUPLES 2000
>
> to
>
> #define MAXSAVEDTUPLES 0
>
> the times zoomed to
>
> [4.5894824930441587, 4.6023111649343242, 4.629560027293957
On 7/3/06, Andrew Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think "trivial" is the right word to use here,
> > since it implies something that's of so little importance
> > that it can be ignored. But the simple cases are precisely
> > the ones where this wart hurts the most, so we can't
> > ig
> Much though the Algol 60 tickles my nostalgia (it was my first
> programming language!) I don't think that it's a particularly strong
> argument. I like to think that we have better ways these days.
Even if so, that's not the point I was trying to make. The point is that
there is a programming
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
> Thomas Heller wrote:
>> - Do I need special rights to call 'svnadmin load' to import this dumpfile
>> into Python SVN, or are the normal commit rights sufficient?
>
> It's called "svnadmin" for a reason :-)
>
> Neal Norwitz or myself will have to do that; we need to d
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
> Thomas Heller wrote:
>> - Do I need special rights to call 'svnadmin load' to import this dumpfile
>> into Python SVN, or are the normal commit rights sufficient?
>
> It's called "svnadmin" for a reason :-)
>
> Neal Norwitz or myself will have to do that; we need to d
> I like the added functionality offered with weakattrs as defined. I'm
> not terribly in love with the syntax of their creation, and I'm curious
> as to how it plays with __slots__
weakattrs are data descriptors, just like properties etc. they are part
of the class, not the instance, so there sho
I need a timeout in urlopen, just to be able to make:
>>> urllib2.urlopen("http://no.host.org";, timeout=2)
This is actually not possible, but I'll make it work.
I want to know, please, if this is useful in general, for me to post a
patch in SF.
Regards,
--
.Facundo
Blog: http://www.tani
On Monday 03 July 2006 14:07, Facundo Batista wrote:
> I want to know, please, if this is useful in general, for me to post a
> patch in SF.
It seems like something that should be easy, and lots of people need to
consider this for applications.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
_
Facundo Batista wrote:
urllib2.urlopen("http://no.host.org";, timeout=2)
>
> This is actually not possible, but I'll make it work.
>
> I want to know, please, if this is useful in general, for me to post a
> patch in SF.
While it might be useful, it can only be added to Python 2.6 now.
So t
On 7/3/06, Andrew Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Much though the Algol 60 tickles my nostalgia (it was my first
> > programming language!) I don't think that it's a particularly strong
> > argument. I like to think that we have better ways these days.
>
> Even if so, that's not the point I w
To fake things like this, socket.setdefaulttimeout() was added, though
I don't know if it actually works. Have you tried that?
--Guido
On 7/3/06, Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I need a timeout in urlopen, just to be able to make:
>
> >>> urllib2.urlopen("http://no.host.org";, timeo
Facundo> I need a timeout in urlopen, just to be able to make:
urllib2.urlopen("http://no.host.org";, timeout=2)
Facundo> This is actually not possible, but I'll make it work.
Facundo> I want to know, please, if this is useful in general, for me to
Facundo> post a patch
Guido> To fake things like this, socket.setdefaulttimeout() was added,
Guido> though I don't know if it actually works. Have you tried that?
I'm pretty sure it does, but is a rather blunt instrument for the task, as
it affects all socket connections the app might make.
Skip
_
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> To fake things like this, socket.setdefaulttimeout() was added, though
> I don't know if it actually works. Have you tried that?
[...]
It works. I think there's some issue with SSL, though (can't seem to find
the issue now).
Of course, feeding thro
For Common Lispers and probably Schemers, Python has some surprising
semantics around scope and lifetime extent of variables. Three that
leap out at me are:
* function parameters with default values are NOT new bindings for each
invocation, so a
default value of [] changes if you destructively
"Bill Chiles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For Common Lispers and probably Schemers, Python has some surprising
> semantics around scope and lifetime extent of variables. Three that
> leap out at me are:
One thing to remember is that Python is not Scheme/Lisp. It borrows
some ideas from Sche
On 7/4/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing to remember is that Python is not Scheme/Lisp. It borrows
> some ideas from Scheme/Lisp,
I can say it stronger. Any resemblance between Python and Scheme or
Lisp is purely a coincidence. Neither language is in Python's
ancestry, at
23 matches
Mail list logo
