[Python-Dev] Re: Speeding up CPython

Where is your working code for the first stage? October 20, 2020 8:53 AM, "Mark Shannon" wrote: > Hi everyone, > > CPython is slow. We all know that, yet little is done to fix it. > > I'd like to change that. > I have a plan to speed up CPython by a factor of five over the next few > years. B

[Python-Dev] Re: Typing syntax and ecosystem

April 12, 2021 4:59 PM, "Brett Cannon" wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 3:01 AM Hugh Fisher wrote: > >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:31:12 -0700 >>> From: Barry Warsaw >>> Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: PEP 647 Accepted >> >>> >>> This is something the SC has been musing about, but a

[Python-Dev] Re: How about using modern C++ in development of CPython ?

Anyone who has done a language change on a project knows that it is a huge disruption. You need solid justification to make such a change. All I have seen in this thread is personal opinion. Since this is a personal opinion exchange, I am of the humble opinion that the personal opinions of co

[Python-Dev] Re: How about using modern C++ in development of CPython ?

April 16, 2021 2:08 PM, "Denis Kotov" wrote: > edwin＠211mainstreet.net wrote: > >> Anyone who has done a language change on a project knows that it is a huge >> disruption. You need >> solid justification to make such a change. All I have seen in this thread

[Python-Dev] Re: Should we be making so many changes in pursuit of PEP 554?

ters are the correct solution to my particular need, why shouldn't I have the privilege of doing so? --Edwin - Original Message - From: Guido van Rossum (gu...@python.org) Date: 06/16/20 13:30 To: Python Dev (python-dev@python.org) Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: Should we be making so ma

[Python-Dev] Re: Hygenic macros PEP.

e of the hardest to read code you ever saw. --Edwin​​​ ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message

[Python-Dev] Re: Hygenic macros PEP.

magic 5000 line macro". A command line flag requires more effort, because you need to continually retype it. In theory, that little bit of extra effort could help to limit macro use to areas where it actually is useful. --Edwin ___ Python-De

[Python-Dev] Re: Hygenic macros PEP.

have no other objections. --Edwin ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archive

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 587 "Python Initialization Configuration": 2nd version

On Thursday, May 02, 2019 Victor Stinner wrote: > According to this > * ``run_command`` (``wchar_t*``): ``-c COMMAND`` argument > * ``run_filename`` (``wchar_t*``): ``python3 SCRIPT`` argument > * ``run_module`` (``wchar_t*``): ``python3 -m MODULE`` argument this > ``-c COMMAND``

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:30 PM Glenn Linderman wrote On 5/20/2019 2:20 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: On 20/05/2019 23.12, Andrew Svetlov wrote: socketserver.py is also questionable I briefly though about the module, but didn't consider it for removal. The http.server, xmlrpc.server, and logging

[Python-Dev] Re: Steering Council update for February

On 3/9/2021 8:03 PM, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: > countries other than US don't have a modern history of slavery Putting both politics and programming aside, this isn't quite so:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom#1950.E2.80.93present

[Python-Dev] Re: Typing syntax and ecosystem

On 4/12/2021 6:34 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > Had the sentences ended at "confusing" or said something like "I don't think > it's as optimal as it could be" or "I think it could be better" are all fine. > But saying that the current approach is "arousing or deserving ridicule : > extremely silly o

[Python-Dev] Re: Problems with dict subclassing performance

Marco, please calm down.  Your angry emails are not helping you in any way.  Everyone on this list has had the experience of being misunderstood.  It is part of being alive.  There is much more to be gained by leaving your anger aside and working constructively towards your goal.  Please, please

[Python-Dev] Re: Dropping out of this list

On 8/18/21 9:18 PM, Jonathan Goble wrote: > I am mostly a lurker, but I am also considering unsubscribing if someone > doesn't step in and stop the mess +1 ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-l

[Python-Dev] Re: It's now time to deprecate the stdlib urllib module

> Christian proposes that having a simpler scope rewrite of it might be nice, > but I think disruption to the world and loss of trust in Python would be > similar either way. Please don't remove urllib.  There are mountains of code that rely on it.  A much better idea, IMO, would be to add a n

[Python-Dev] Re: About PEPs being discussed on Discourse

On 4/8/22 09:34, Petr Viktorin wrote: > some cases where Discourse thinks something is a footer and removes it, but > IMO they're not huge problems. It also has some very good markdown support, so you can post nicely formatted code via email.  Mailing list mode with Discourse is almost nicer th

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 554 for 3.9 or 3.10?

On 4/20/2020 6:30 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > We already have robust support for threads for low-isolation and > subprocesses for high-isolation. Can you name some use cases where > neither of these are appropriate and you instead want an in-between > isolation – like subprocesses, but more fragil

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 554 for 3.9 or 3.10?

On 4/20/2020 7:33 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 4:26 PM Edwin Zimmerman > wrote: >> On 4/20/2020 6:30 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >>> We already have robust support for threads for low-isolation and >>> subprocesses for high-isolation. Can

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 554 comments

quot; to use this? According to the docs, the purpose of __future__ is "to document when incompatible changes were introduced", and it does seem that this would be an incompatible change for some C extensions. --Edwin ___ Python-Dev mailing

[Python-Dev] Should we be making so many changes in pursuit of PEP 554?

> Hi, > > There have been a lot of changes both to the C API and to internal > implementations to allow multiple interpreters in a single O/S process. > > These changes cause backwards compatibility changes, have a negative > performance impact, and cause a lot of churn. > > While I'm in favour

[Python-Dev] Re: My take on multiple interpreters (Was: Should we be making so many changes in pursuit of PEP 554?)

lobals=globals()) 40.28172119964 Or this way: >>> timeit.timeit("""os.system('python.exe -c "exit()"')""",number=100, >>> globals=globals()) 17.46125929995 --Edwin ___ Python-

[Python-Dev] Re: My take on multiple interpreters (Was: Should we be making so many changes in pursuit of PEP 554?)

On 6/12/2020 6:18 AM, Edwin Zimmerman wrote: > On 6/12/2020 5:08 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 09:47, Mark Shannon wrote: >>> Starting a new process is cheap. On my machine, starting a new Python >>> process takes under 1ms and uses a few Mbytes. &g

[Python-Dev] Re: My take on multiple interpreters (Was: Should we be making so many changes in pursuit of PEP 554?)

cessing comes out way ahead of subinterpreters on linux, but way behind on Windows. I need to time subinterpreters on Windows yet for the full picture, but that will be tomorrow till I get that done. --Edwin From: Emily Bowman [mailto:silverback...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020

[Python-Dev] Re: My take on multiple interpreters (Was: Should we be making so many changes in pursuit of PEP 554?)

On 6/12/2020 2:17 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 3:50 AM Edwin Zimmerman > wrote: >> My previous timings were slightly inaccurate, as they compared spawning >> processes on Windows to forking on Linux. Also, I changed my timing code to >> run all p

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 622: Structural Pattern Matching

enough to cause some headaches. A missing . is exactly the type of mistake I tend to make. It is also the type of mistake that I could stare at endlessly and not notice.  Surely there could be a much more obvious way of doing things. Other than this . issue, the PEP is great!  I look forward to us

[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-ideas] Re: Amend PEP-8 to require clear, understandable comments instead of Strunk & White Standard English comments

acking them personally. To everyone else:  I saw this flame war coming the minute I read the original post.  Unfortunately, it seems no longer possible to discuss this subject in any reasonable way.  Everyone seems to have forgotten that you can attack an idea without attacking the person presenting

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 632: Deprecate distutils module

est software development problem is software dependencies that assume a full blown internet connection under all circumstances.  Even in 2020, that is not always wanted or advisable. --Edwin Zimmerman > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 02:56:07PM -0700, Emily Bowman wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 632: Deprecate distutils module

On 9/5/2020 3:59 AM, Emily Bowman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 3:11 PM Stefan Krah > wrote: > > > > It is not hyperbolic at all. You can get permissions for a certain set > of modules (the stdlib), but not for PyPI packages. > > Of course the upgrade is n