[bringing back on-list]
On 05/10/2014 07:30 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 05/10/2014 02:03 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
spam is referring to a local variable that has not been bound. This is
not an implementation detail.
The implementat
[Raymond Hettinger]
> ...
> I'm not all at comfortable with the wording of the second sentence.
> I was the author of the SystemRandom() class and I only want
> to guarantee that it provides access to the operating system's
> source of random numbers. It is a bold claim to guarantee that
> it is cr
On May 10, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Total +1 on keeping these little bits around.
Since all of you want a warning, I'll add one back
but with improved wording.
I'm not all at comfortable with the wording of the second sentence.
I was the author of the SystemRandom() class and I
Yes right, sorry I didn’t mean to imply that all that time was spent in the
Python start up time. I’ve personally never actually spent time to figure out
which part of that was slow because getting visibility inside of a
subprocess.Popen is a pain and I’m slowly trying to rewrite our tests to not
r
Nick Coghlan, 11.05.2014 01:01:
> As you point out, most language development teams do very little to try to
> educate their users about security issues. The consequences of that are
> clearly visible in the world around us: when security is treated as an
> optional afterthought, you get widespread
On 11 May 2014 08:24, "Raymond Hettinger"
wrote:
>
> Before proceeding further with stamping distracting security
> warnings all over the module documentation, we should look
> to other languages to see what others have found necessary.
> This warning does not appear anywhere else I've looked
> (M
Yeah, but 200 test in 30 minutes is 9 *seconds* per test -- the Python
startup time is only a tiny fraction of that (20-40 *milliseconds*).
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Victor Stinner
> wrote:
>
> Le 10 mai 2014 22:51, "Gregory Szorc"
> You might have forgotten to include Python-dev in the reply.
Indeed, adding it back!
> Thank you for the reply. I might have expressed the question poorely. I
> meant: I have a script that I know is not thread-safe but it doesn't matter
> because the test itself doesn't run any threads and the
Hi,
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
> I think this change is a considerable usability regression for the
> documentation. Right now the warnings about CSPRNGs are hidden in the
> introductory paragraph, which users
On May 10, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Le 10 mai 2014 22:51, "Gregory Szorc" a écrit :
> > Furthermore, Python 3 appears to be >50% slower than Python 2.
>
> Please mention the minor version. It looks like you compared 2.7 and 3.3.
> Please test 3.4, we made interesting progress
Give it up, Raymond.
On Saturday, May 10, 2014, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou
> >
> wrote:
>
> It's not about being bright or not, it's about being
> *willing* to eat walls of text. However pleasant it may be for some
> people to *write* documentation,
On May 10, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> It's not about being bright or not, it's about being
> *willing* to eat walls of text. However pleasant it may be for some
> people to *write* documentation, for most readers (and especially
> non-native English readers, who read more slowly a
On May 10, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 11 May 2014 07:37, "Raymond Hettinger" wrote:
> >
> >
> > On May 10, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> >
> >> I think this change is a considerable usability regression for the
> >> documentation. Right now the warnings about CSPRN
On 11 May 2014 07:37, "Raymond Hettinger"
wrote:
>
>
> On May 10, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
>> I think this change is a considerable usability regression for the
documentation. Right now the warnings about CSPRNGs are hidden in the
introductory paragraph, which users are likely to sk
On Sat, 10 May 2014 14:35:38 -0700
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> In the past couple of years, we've grown an unfortunate tendency
> to fill the docs with big warning boxes (the subprocess docs are
> an example of implicitly communicating that the module is dangerous
> and unusable).
>
> The prefe
Le 10 mai 2014 22:51, "Gregory Szorc" a écrit :
> Furthermore, Python 3 appears to be >50% slower than Python 2.
Please mention the minor version. It looks like you compared 2.7 and 3.3.
Please test 3.4, we made interesting progress on the startup time.
There is still something to do, especially
Hello,
On Sat, 10 May 2014 13:05:54 -0700
Gregory Szorc wrote:
> I was investigating speeding up Mercurial's test suite (it runs ~13,000
> Python processes) and I believe I've identified CPython
> process/interpreter creation and destruction as sources of significant
> overhead and thus a concer
If you need a well defined environement, run your test in a subprocess.
Depending on the random function, your test may be run with more threads.
On BSD, it changes for example which thread receives a signal. Importing
the tkinter module creates a "hidden" C thread for the Tk loop.
Victor
On May 10, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> I think this change is a considerable usability regression for the
> documentation. Right now the warnings about CSPRNGs are hidden in the
> introductory paragraph, which users are likely to skip
In the past couple of years, we've grown an un
Hi python-dev and Raymond,
I think this change is a considerable usability regression for the
documentation. Right now the warnings about CSPRNGs are hidden in the
introductory paragraph, which users are likely to skip. I agree that
there's no need to repeat the same advice twice, but I'd much rat
I was investigating speeding up Mercurial's test suite (it runs ~13,000
Python processes) and I believe I've identified CPython
process/interpreter creation and destruction as sources of significant
overhead and thus a concern for any CPython user.
Full details are at [1]. tl;dr 10-18% of CPU time
Brian Curtin wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Zachary Ware
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Zachary Ware
>> wrote:
>>> I updated the 2.7 buildbot scripts to pull in Tcl/Tk 8.5.15 a couple
>>> of weeks ago (see http://bugs.python.org/issue21303), but hadn't
>>> gotten anything
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Zachary Ware
wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Zachary Ware
> wrote:
>> I updated the 2.7 buildbot scripts to pull in Tcl/Tk 8.5.15 a couple
>> of weeks ago (see http://bugs.python.org/issue21303), but hadn't
>> gotten anything done with Tix yet. It should
On 10 May 2014 06:53, "akira" <4kir4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> May tests expect that unless they themselves start a thread then there
are no threads to worry about?
>
> I see that some old tests are not thread-safe and I have not found it to
be explicitly mentioned in the devguide.
>
> I've
24 matches
Mail list logo