Nick Coghlan wrote:
(redirecting to python-ideas - coroutine proposals are nowhere near
mature enough for python-dev)
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Matt Joiner wrote:
If someone can explain what's stopping real coroutines being into
Python (3.3), that would be great.
The general issues wi
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 15:11, Brian Curtin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 15:01, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> I previously completed the port at my old company (but could not
>>> release it), and I have a good bit of it completed for us at
>>> http://hg.python.org/sandbox/vs2010port/. That rep
Is this considered a new feature that has to be in by the first beta?
I'm hoping to have it completed much sooner than that so we can get
mileage on it, but is there a cutoff for changing the compiler?
At some point, I'll start doing this myself if it hasn't been done by
then, and I would certai
PEP: XXX
Title: Interpreter support for concurrent programming
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Ethan Furman
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 26-Jan-2012
Python-Version: 3.3
Post-History:
Abstract
One of the open issues from PEP 31
2012/1/26 Ethan Furman :
> PEP: XXX
> Title: Interpreter support for concurrent programming
mm?
> Version: $Revision$
> Last-Modified: $Date$
> Author: Ethan Furman
> Status: Draft
> Type: Standards Track
> Content-Type: text/x-rst
> Created: 26-Jan-2012
> Python-Version: 3.3
> Post-History:
BT
On Jan 26, 2012, at 10:54 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>2012/1/26 Ethan Furman :
>> PEP: XXX
>> Title: Interpreter support for concurrent programming
>
>mm?
>
>> Version: $Revision$
>> Last-Modified: $Date$
>> Author: Ethan Furman
>> Status: Draft
>> Type: Standards Track
>> Content-Type: text/x-
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2012/1/26 Ethan Furman :
PEP: XXX
Title: Interpreter support for concurrent programming
mm?
Oops!
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Ethan Furman
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 26-Jan-2012
Python-Version: 3.3
2012/1/26 Ethan Furman :
>> BTW, I don't really think this needs a PEP.
Obviously it doesn't hurt. And I see from the issue that the change
was not as uncontroversial as I originally thought, so it's likely for
the better.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
___
Py
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> BTW, I don't really think this needs a PEP.
That's largely my influence - the discussion in the relevant tracker
item (http://bugs.python.org/issue6210) had covered enough ground that
I didn't notice that Ethan's specific proposal *isn't
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I've been burnt by too much code that replaces detailed, informative
> and useful error messages that tell me exactly what is going wrong
> with bland, useless garbage to be in favour of an approach that
> doesn't even set the __context__ attr
On 1/26/2012 10:25 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
(and on top of all of this I believe we're all settled on having per
interpreter hash randomization_as well_ in 3.3; but this AVL tree
approach is one nice option for a backport to fix the major
vulnerability)
If the tree code cures the problem, t
11 matches
Mail list logo
