On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Neil Schemenauer
wrote:
> This discussion can easily lead into bikeshedding (e.g. relative
> merits of different compression schemes). Since I'm not
> volunteering to implement anything, I will stop responding at this
> point. ;-)
I think the bikeshedding -- or m
I am also in agreement.
On Fri, May 25, 2018, 13:49 Guido van Rossum wrote:
> OK, +1
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Raymond Hettinger <
> raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On May 25, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Antoine Pitrou
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's worth nothing that OrderedDict a
On 2018-05-25, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> The question is what purpose does it serve for pickle to do it rather
> than for the user to compress the pickle themselves. You're basically
> saving one line of code.
It's one line of code everywhere pickling or unpicking happens. And
you probably need to
On Fri, 25 May 2018 14:50:57 -0600
Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> On 2018-05-25, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > Do you have something specific in mind?
>
> I think compressed by default is a good idea. My quick proposal:
>
> - Use fast compression like lz4 or zlib with Z_BEST_SPEED
>
> - Add a 'compre
On 2018-05-25, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Do you have something specific in mind?
I think compressed by default is a good idea. My quick proposal:
- Use fast compression like lz4 or zlib with Z_BEST_SPEED
- Add a 'compress' keyword argument with a default of None. For
protocol 5, None means to
On 25.05.2018 20:36, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On May 24, 2018, at 10:57 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
While PEP 574 (pickle protocol 5 with out-of-band data) is still in
draft status, I've made available an implementation in branch "pickle5"
in my GitHub fork of CPython:
https://github.com/pitrou
On Fri, 25 May 2018 10:36:08 -0700
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > On May 24, 2018, at 10:57 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > While PEP 574 (pickle protocol 5 with out-of-band data) is still in
> > draft status, I've made available an implementation in branch "pickle5"
> > in my GitHub fork of CPy
OK, +1
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Raymond Hettinger <
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On May 25, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > It's worth nothing that OrderedDict already supports reversed().
> > The argument could go both ways:
> >
> > 1. dict is similar to
> On May 24, 2018, at 10:57 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> While PEP 574 (pickle protocol 5 with out-of-band data) is still in
> draft status, I've made available an implementation in branch "pickle5"
> in my GitHub fork of CPython:
> https://github.com/pitrou/cpython/tree/pickle5
>
> Also I've
> On May 25, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> It's worth nothing that OrderedDict already supports reversed().
> The argument could go both ways:
>
> 1. dict is similar to OrderedDict nowadays, so it should support
> reversed() too;
>
> 2. you can use OrderedDict to signal explic
I tried this implementation to add no-copy pickling for large numpy arrays
and seems to work as expected (for a simple contiguous array). I took some
notes on the numpy tracker to advertise this PEP to the numpy developers:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/11161
--
Olivier
___
It's worth nothing that OrderedDict already supports reversed().
The argument could go both ways:
1. dict is similar to OrderedDict nowadays, so it should support
reversed() too;
2. you can use OrderedDict to signal explicitly that you care about
ordering; no need to add anything to dict.
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2018-05-18 - 2018-05-25)
Python tracker at https://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:
open6699 (+13)
closed 38700 (+63)
total 45399 (+76)
Open issues wi
INADA Naoki asked Rémi Lapeyre in https://bugs.python.org/issue33462
to start a discussion on python-dev.
Victor
2018-05-25 17:48 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum :
> (Also this probably belongs in python-ideas, unless there's already a
> bugs.python.org issue for it -- but you didn't mention that so I
It looks like an optimization, since you can already do something like
reversed(list(d)). Do you have benchmark numbers to see the benefit of
your change?
Even if reversed(list(d)) is slow, I'm not sure that it's worth it to
optimize it, since it's a rare usecase.
Victor
2018-05-24 14:55 GMT+02:
(Also this probably belongs in python-ideas, unless there's already a
bugs.python.org issue for it -- but you didn't mention that so I assume
it's just an idea? How did you reach the line count estimates?)
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Please go find some real world
Please go find some real world code that would benefit from this. Don't
make up examples, just show some code in a repository (public if possible,
but private is okay, as long as you can quote small amounts of code from
it) where te existence of reverse iteration over a dict would have been
helpful
Hi,
since dict keys are sorted by their insertion order since Python 3.6 and that
it’s part of Python specs since 3.7 a proposal has been made in bpo-33462 to
add the __reversed__ method to dict and dict views.
Concerns have been raised in the comments that this feature may add too much
bloat
> me> On the 3.7 branch, "make test" routinely fails to terminate.
> Antoine> Can you try to rebuild Python? Use "make distclean" if that
helps.
> Thanks, Antoine. That solved the termination problem. I still have
problems
> with test_asyncio failing, but I can live with that for now.
Final foll
19 matches
Mail list logo
