2009/11/7 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
Hello again,
It shows that, on my platform for this specific benchmark:
* newgil manage to leverage a significant amount of parallelism
(1.7) where python 3.1 does not (3.1 is 80% slower)
I think you are mistaken:
-j0 (main
Baptiste Lepilleur baptiste.lepilleur at gmail.com writes:
I've tried, but there is no change in result (the regexp does not use \w
co but specify a lot unicode ranges). All strings are already of unicode
type in 2.6.
No they aren't. You should add from __future__ import unicode_literals at
Hi,
in a (misguided) bugreport (http://bugs.python.org/issue7279) I was
questioning the reasons for allowing NaN comparisons with == and !=
rather than raising InvalidOperation.
I think two main issues emerge from the brief discussion:
1. Should the comparison operators follow the 'compare'
JFTR, I didn't set up the IRC bot (I assume that credit goes to Martin,
even if it's only one line in the buildbot config :). I just tried to
get it to say something :)
Yes, it was always on. I don't use IRC regularly, so I don't know
whether it's useful.
Regards,
Martin
[Stefan Krah]
in a (misguided) bugreport (http://bugs.python.org/issue7279) I was
questioning the reasons for allowing NaN comparisons with == and !=
rather than raising InvalidOperation.
Do you have any actual use case issues or are these theoretical musings?
I ask only because a good use
Also, for Python 2.5 and earlier, any SSL-based code is vulnerable to a MitM
anyway, so this can only be an issue for code using the new APIs in Python
2.6.
That's not going to stop the
wannabe-self-proclaimed-so-called-vulnerability-experts from whining
about Python not releasing updated
Stefan Krah stefan-usenet at bytereef.org writes:
Are there cases where == and != are actually needed to give a result
for NaNs?
It is a common expectation that == and != always succeed. They return True or
False, but don't raise an exception even on unrelated operands:
ba == a
False
5 ==
John Arbash Meinel wrote:
He wanted to introduce a moratorium at least partially because he was
tired of endless threads about anonymous code blocks, etc. Which aren't
going to be included in the language anyway, so he may as well make a
point to say and neither will anything else for a while.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 at 19:44, Martin v. L?wis wrote:
JFTR, I didn't set up the IRC bot (I assume that credit goes to Martin,
even if it's only one line in the buildbot config :). I just tried to
get it to say something :)
Yes, it was always on. I don't use IRC regularly, so I don't know
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Yuvgoog Greenle ubershme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Bobby R. Ward bobbyrw...@gmail.com wrote:
A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
I think a few people I know would still be raising strings like exceptions
if not for the deprecation
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:36 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
Also, for Python 2.5 and earlier, any SSL-based code is vulnerable to a MitM
anyway, so this can only be an issue for code using the new APIs in Python
2.6.
That's not going to stop the
John Arbash Meinel wrote:
He wanted to introduce a moratorium at least partially because he was
tired of endless threads about anonymous code blocks, etc. Which aren't
going to be included in the language anyway, so he may as well make a
point to say and neither will anything else for a while.
Gregory P. Smith schrieb:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Yuvgoog Greenle ubershme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Bobby R. Ward bobbyrw...@gmail.com wrote:
A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
I think a few people I know would still be raising strings like exceptions
if
Greg Ewing greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz writes:
If anonymous code blocks still get discussed even when
they have no chance of being accepted, this suggests that
a moratorium is *not* going to stop discussion of new
features.
Well, if they get discussed, it's probably that some people
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impression
that Python the language is moribund. It says, this is an exceptional
pause, not a permanent halt.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impression
that Python the language is
On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:01 PM, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
date. A clear end date
SpamBayes has several files which contain raw 8-bit data embedded in
string literals. Before I do manual work to make them parseable by 2to3
I thought I would ask if there was either a fixer available which I'm
not getting by default or if there is an opportunity to add a new fixer
to 2to3.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:01 PM, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the very least, I
2009/11/8 s...@pobox.com:
SpamBayes has several files which contain raw 8-bit data embedded in
string literals. Before I do manual work to make them parseable by 2to3
I thought I would ask if there was either a fixer available which I'm
not getting by default or if there is an opportunity
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...).
Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
features provided they meet the usual standards for new features.
Oh no, not
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
I quote:
This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
of *at least two years* from the release of Python 3.1.
Emphasis mine.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
2009/11/8 s...@pobox.com:
SpamBayes has several files which contain raw 8-bit data embedded in
string literals. Before I do manual work to make them parseable by 2to3
I thought I would ask if there was either a
Guido But if you're happy with only supporting 2.6, you can use b... and
Guido the right thing will happen.
SpamBayes still supports 2.4...
Thanks for the feedback. I'll update the source manually, then run 2to3.
S
___
Python-Dev mailing
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...).
Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
features provided they meet the usual standards for
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
I quote:
This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Stefan Krah stefan-usenet at bytereef.org writes:
Are there cases where == and != are actually needed to give a result
for NaNs?
It is a common expectation that == and != always succeed. They return True or
False, but don't raise an exception even on unrelated operands:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:53 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
(2) issue 4970: consistent signal 32 error on the norwitz-x86 Gentoo
buildslave in 3.1 and 3.x. This may be due to the box
Hello,
Quite an interesting question recently popped up in pygame community
that I'd like to ask to Python developers.
How many of you use IDLE?
What's wrong with it?
From my side I like the idea of having default Python editor that is
small, fast, convenient and extensible/embeddable. IDLE is
anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com writes:
Quite an interesting question recently popped up in pygame community
that I'd like to ask to Python developers.
This forum is specifically about development *of* Python.
You would do better to ask on the discussion forum for Python users
I think in a prior discussion, it was suggested that build slave
updates were ok for this list - I apologize to those who may not be
interested.
I've just completed some updates to my two build slaves.
XP-4 is now running XP Pro SP3 (was SP2) and is using the full version
of VS 2008 (was
data = GIF89a(...
Is there a potentially automated path from where the code is today to
something Python 3 (and 2to3) will like?
Not sure how you'll fix these; I personally always provided a b()
function that will do the right thing in both 2.x and 3.x. This can
get eventually replaced
Quite an interesting question recently popped up in pygame community
that I'd like to ask to Python developers.
How many of you use IDLE?
I do, sometimes.
What's wrong with it?
AFAICT, nothing.
From my side I like the idea of having default Python editor that is
small, fast, convenient
33 matches
Mail list logo
