Am 15.04.2011 15:47, schrieb Victor Stinner:
Le vendredi 15 avril 2011 à 13:34 +0200, Jesus Cea a écrit :
http://docs.python.org/py3k/ takes you to 2.7, by default.
Should we update it to point to 3.2?. If the point is to promote Python 3...
I would point it to 3.2, with a big access to
Sandro Tosi sandro.tosi at gmail.com writes:
The version we have in cpython of json is simplejson 2.0.9 highly
patched (either because it was converted to py3k, and because of the
normal flow of issues/bugfixes) while upstream have already released
2.1.13 .
I think you mean 2.1.3?
Their 2
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:41:03 +
Matt Billenstein m...@vazor.com wrote:
Slightly less crude benchmark showing simplejson is quite a bit faster:
http://pastebin.com/g1WqUPwm
250ms vs 5.5s encoding and decoding an 11KB json object 1000 times...
This doesn't have much value if you don't
Hello,
On 15/04/11 13:30, Brian Curtin wrote:
To me, the fix *was* released.
No, it wasn't. It was *committed* to the repository.
Sure, no fancy installers were generated yet, but people who are
susceptible to this issue 1) now know about it, and 2) have a way to
patch their system *if
Sandro Tosi sandro.tosi at gmail.com writes:
Luckily, upstream is receptive for patches, so part of the job is to
forward patches written for cpython not already in the upstream code.
Further to my earlier response to your post, I should mention that my fork of
simplejson at
Hello Vinay,
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:50:25 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If it is generally considered desirable to maintain some synchrony between
simplejson and stdlib json, then since Bob has stated that he no interest in
Python 3, it may be better to:
1.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Gustavo Narea m...@gustavonarea.net wrote:
I reckon if this had been handled differently (i.e., making new releases
and communicating it via the relevant channels [1]), we wouldn't have
the situation we have right now.
Nope, we would have a situation where the
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
do the ongoing maintenance. Bob apparently isn't interested in
maintaining stdlib code, and python-dev members aren't interested in
maintaining
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
do the ongoing maintenance. Bob apparently isn't interested in
maintaining stdlib
Hello all,
This is an invite to all core-python developers, and developers of
alternative implementations, to attend the Python Language Summit at
EuroPython. The summit will be on June 19th and EuroPython this year
will be held at the beautiful city of Florence in Italy.
On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
do the ongoing maintenance. Bob
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 17:07 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
What you're proposing doesn't address the
Antoine Pitrou, 16.04.2011 16:19:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:50:25 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip wrote:
If it is generally considered desirable to maintain some synchrony between
simplejson and stdlib json, then since Bob has stated that he no interest in
Python 3, it may be better to:
1. Convert the
On Saturday, April 16, 2011, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 17:07 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:04:53 +0200
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Well, if that is not possible, then the CPython devs will have a hard time
maintaining the json accelerator module in the long run. I quickly skipped
through the github version in simplejson, and it truly is some
On 2011-04-16, at 17:25 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 17:07 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
On 2011-04-16, at 16:52 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le samedi 16 avril 2011 à 16:42 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 16:19, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
Hi Antoine,
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
do the ongoing maintenance.
I agree, my suggestion is orthogonal to the question of who maintains stdlib
json. But if the json module is languishing in comparison to
I've contributed a couple of patches myself after they were integrated
to CPython (they are part of the performance improvements Bob is talking
about), but that was exceptional. Backporting a patch to another project
with a different directory structure, a slightly different code, etc. is
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:47:49 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
What you're proposing doesn't address the question of who is going to
do the ongoing maintenance.
I agree, my suggestion is orthogonal to the question of who maintains stdlib
json.
No, that's not what
I agree, my suggestion is orthogonal to the question of who maintains stdlib
json. But if the json module is languishing in comparison to simplejson, then
bringing the code bases closer together may be worthwhile.
Right: *if* the module is languishing. But it's not. It just diverges.
It may
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
Does it actually need improvement?
I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing for the better - albeit
slowly. I wasn't thinking of specific improvements, just the idea of continuous
improvement in general...
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
In the grand python-dev tradition of silence means acceptance, I consider
this PEP finalized and implicitly accepted.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 15:07, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
Here is the next draft of the PEP. I changed the semantics requirement to
state that 100% branch coverage is
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
In the grand python-dev tradition of silence means acceptance, I consider
this PEP finalized and implicitly accepted.
I did not really see an answer to these concerns:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110672.html
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
Does it actually need improvement?
I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing for the better - albeit
slowly. I wasn't thinking of specific improvements, just the idea of
continuous
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 14:23, Stefan Krah ste...@bytereef.org wrote:
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
In the grand python-dev tradition of silence means acceptance, I
consider
this PEP finalized and implicitly accepted.
I did not really see an answer to these concerns:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:45:52 -0700
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 14:23, Stefan Krah ste...@bytereef.org wrote:
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
In the grand python-dev tradition of silence means acceptance, I
consider
this PEP finalized and
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
I can see three possible areas of improvment:
1. Bugs: if there are any, they should clearly be fixed. However, JSON
is a simple format, so the implementation should be able to converge
to something fairly correct quickly.
2. Performance:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Hmm, what's the difference between the Python stdlib and CPython's
stdlib?
I'm also not sure how you would enforce that anyway. If it means
using ctypes to interface with system C libraries, I'm -10 on it :)
Sounds
On 16/04/2011 22:28, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
Martin v. Löwismartinat v.loewis.de writes:
Does it actually need improvement?
I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing for the better - albeit
slowly. I wasn't thinking of specific
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:48:45 +0100
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 16/04/2011 22:28, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
Martin v. Löwismartinat v.loewis.de writes:
Does it actually need improvement?
I can't actually say, but I assume it
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 01:30:13PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:41:03 +
Matt Billenstein m...@vazor.com wrote:
Slightly less crude benchmark showing simplejson is quite a bit faster:
http://pastebin.com/g1WqUPwm
250ms vs 5.5s encoding and decoding an
Michael Foord wrote:
On 15/04/2011 02:23, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[...]
If we treat django's failure to use super as a bug, you want the
Python language to work-around that bug so that:
What you say (that this particular circumstance could be treated as a
bug in django) is true, however
On Apr 16, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 14:23, Stefan Krah ste...@bytereef.org wrote:
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
In the grand python-dev tradition of silence means acceptance, I consider
this PEP finalized and implicitly accepted.
I haven't
On 16 Apr, 11:03 pm, st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:
In the grand python-dev tradition of silence means acceptance, I
consider
this PEP finalized and implicitly accepted.
How long does that silence have to last?
I didn't notice a definition of what counts as 100% branch
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 06:45, Gustavo Narea m...@gustavonarea.net wrote:
Hello,
On 15/04/11 13:30, Brian Curtin wrote:
To me, the fix *was* released.
No, it wasn't. It was *committed* to the repository.
Yep, and that's enough for me. If you have a vulnerable system, you can now
patch it
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Ricardo Kirkner
ricardokirk...@gmail.com wrote:
I recently stumbled upon an issue with a class in the mro chain not
calling super, therefore breaking the chain (ie, further base classes
along the chain didn't get called).
I understand it is currently a
Argh! Sorry list. I meant to discard the post that was just sent.
Please accept my humblest apologies...
Mark
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:19:32 -0700, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 16, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 14:23, Stefan Krah ste...@bytereef.org wrote:
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
In the grand python-dev tradition of
38 matches
Mail list logo
