Dnia 25-11-2011 o godz. 1:01 Jesus Cea napisał(a):
PS: The devguide doesn't say anything (AFAIK) about the contributor
agreement.
There is info in the Contributing part of the devguide,
follow How to Become a Core Developer link which points to
http://docs.python.org/devguide/coredev.html
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com wrote:
Eli, the use pattern I was referring to is when you read in chunks,
and and append to a running buffer. Presumably if you know in advance
the size of the data, you can readinto directly to a region of a
bytearray. There by
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 08:38:48 +0200
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to be clear, there were two separate issues raised here. One is the
speed regression of readinto() from 2.7 to 3.2, and the other is the
relative slowness of justread() in 3.3
Regarding the second, I'm not sure
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:34:21 +1100
Matt Joiner anacro...@gmail.com wrote:
It's Python 3.2. I tried it for larger files and got some interesting results.
readinto() for 10MB files, reading 10MB all at once:
readinto/2.7 100 loops, best of 3: 8.6 msec per loop
readinto/3.2 10 loops, best
You can see in the tests on the largest buffer size tested, 8192, that
the naive read actually outperforms readinto(). It's possibly by
extrapolating into significantly larger buffer sizes that readinto()
gets left behind. It's also reasonable to assume that this wasn't
tested thoroughly.
On Fri,
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:34:21 +1100
Matt Joiner anacro...@gmail.com wrote:
It's Python 3.2. I tried it for larger files and got some interesting
results.
readinto() for 10MB files, reading 10MB all at once:
However, the original question remains - on the 100MB file also, although
in 2.7 readinto is 35% faster than readandcopy(), on 3.2 it's about the
same speed (even a few % slower). That said, I now observe with Python
3.3
the same speed as with 2.7, including the readinto() speedup - so it
I was under the impression this is already in 3.3?
On Nov 25, 2011 10:58 PM, Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com wrote:
However, the original question remains - on the 100MB file also,
although
in 2.7 readinto is 35% faster than readandcopy(), on 3.2 it's about the
same speed (even a few %
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 14:02, Matt Joiner anacro...@gmail.com wrote:
I was under the impression this is already in 3.3?
Sure, but 3.3 wasn't released yet.
Eli
P.S. Top-posting again ;-)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:37:49 +1100
Matt Joiner anacro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:34:21 +1100
Matt Joiner anacro...@gmail.com wrote:
It's Python 3.2. I tried it for larger files and got some
On 25 November 2011 11:37, Matt Joiner anacro...@gmail.com wrote:
No wtf here, the read() loop is quadratic since you're building a
new, larger, bytes object every iteration. Python 2 has a fragile
optimization for concatenation of strings, which can avoid the
quadratic behaviour on some
2011/11/25 Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com
The optimisation mentioned was an attempt (by mutating an existing
string when the runtime determined that it was safe to do so) to hide
the consequences of this fact from end-users who didn't fully
understand the issues. It was relatively effective,
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011, Jesus Cea wrote:
When mailing there, I get this error. Not sure where to report.
Final-Recipient: rfc822; sdr...@sdrees.de
Original-Recipient: rfc822;webmas...@python.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: dns; stefan.zinzdrees.de
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550
On 25 November 2011 15:07, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc amaur...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/11/25 Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com
It would be nice to have the optimisation back if it's easy enough to
do so, for quick-and-dirty code, but it is not a good idea to rely on
it (and it's especially unwise to base
On 25/11/2011 15:48, Paul Moore wrote:
On 25 November 2011 15:07, Amaury Forgeot d'Arcamaur...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/11/25 Paul Moorep.f.mo...@gmail.com
It would be nice to have the optimisation back if it's easy enough to
do so, for quick-and-dirty code, but it is not a good idea to rely on
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2011-11-18 - 2011-11-25)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open3134 (+19)
closed 22128 (+31)
total 25262 (+50)
Open issues
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 07:46, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski fij...@gmail.com
wrote:
The problem is not with maintaining the modified directory. The
problem was always things like changing interface between the C
version and
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 12:37:59 -0500
Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 07:46, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski fij...@gmail.com
wrote:
The problem is not with maintaining the modified directory. The
2011/11/25 Brett Cannon br...@python.org
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 07:46, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski fij...@gmail.com
wrote:
The problem is not with maintaining the modified directory. The
problem was always things like
On 24 Nov 2011, at 04:06, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Mea culpa for not keeping track, but what's the status of PEP 380? I
really want this in Python 3.3!
There are two relevant tracker issues (both with me for the moment).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/11/11 16:56, Éric Araujo wrote:
Ezio and I chatted a bit about his on IRC and he may try to write
a Python parser for Misc/NEWS in order to write a fully automated
merge tool.
Anything new in this front? :-)
- --
Jesus Cea Avion
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 24 Nov 2011, at 04:06, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Mea culpa for not keeping track, but what's the status of PEP 380? I
really want this in
On Nov 25, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
On 12/11/11 16:56, Éric Araujo wrote:
Ezio and I chatted a bit about his on IRC and he may try to write
a Python parser for Misc/NEWS in order to write a fully automated
merge tool.
Anything new in this front? :-)
To me, it would make more
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 25, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
On 12/11/11 16:56, Éric Araujo wrote:
Ezio and I chatted a bit about his on IRC and he may try to write
a Python parser for Misc/NEWS in order to write a
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 24 Nov 2011, at 04:06, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Mea culpa for not
25 matches
Mail list logo
