Benjamin Peterson benjamin at python.org writes:
As we prepare to merge the io-c branch, the question has come up [1]
about the original Python implementation. Should it just be deleted in
favor C version? The wish to maintain the two implementations together
has been raised on the basis
Antoine Pitrou schrieb:
Benjamin Peterson benjamin at python.org writes:
As we prepare to merge the io-c branch, the question has come up [1]
about the original Python implementation. Should it just be deleted in
favor C version? The wish to maintain the two implementations together
has
Georg Brandl g.brandl at gmx.net writes:
I just hope everyone updates both versions when making changes to IO.
My proposal is just organizational, it is neutral in terms of whether or not the
Python version is correctly maintained.
We can hope that the IO lib *semantics* won't change too much
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Georg Brandl g.brandl at gmx.net writes:
I just hope everyone updates both versions when making changes to IO.
My proposal is just organizational, it is neutral in terms of whether or not the
Python version is correctly maintained.
We can hope that the IO lib
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:41:51 -0600, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
As we prepare to merge the io-c branch, the question has come up [1]
about the original Python implementation. Should it just be deleted in
favor C version? The wish to maintain the two implementations together
has been raised on
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Georg Brandl g.brandl at gmx.net writes:
I just hope everyone updates both versions when making changes to IO.
My proposal is just organizational, it is neutral in terms of whether or not
the
Python version is
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org writes:
I worry that with your proposal people are once again going to import
the pure Python version where they shouldn't. Maybe _pyio.py would
work though?
I'm ok with _pyio.py.
Hoping that modules won't evolve is futile. The concern for divergence
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Georg Brandl g.brandl at gmx.net writes:
I just hope everyone updates both versions when making changes to IO.
My proposal is just organizational, it is neutral in terms of whether or not the
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Currently, if I want to verify that (say) cFoo and Foo do the same
thing, or compare their speed, it's easy because I can import the
modules separately.
Also, won't foo.py be wasting time in most cases by
defining python versions that get overwritten?
Instead of
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 13:15, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nzwrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Currently, if I want to verify that (say) cFoo and Foo do the same thing,
or compare their speed, it's easy because I can import the modules
separately.
Also, won't foo.py be wasting time
Greg Ewing wrote:
Instead of defining things directly in foo.py, maybe it
should do
try:
from cFoo import *
except ImportError:
from pyFoo import *
Then the fast path will be taken if cFoo is available,
and you can directly import cFoo or pyFoo if you want.
For what it's worth,
As we prepare to merge the io-c branch, the question has come up [1]
about the original Python implementation. Should it just be deleted in
favor C version? The wish to maintain the two implementations together
has been raised on the basis that Python is easier to experiment on
and read (for other
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 at 21:41, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
As we prepare to merge the io-c branch, the question has come up [1]
about the original Python implementation. Should it just be deleted in
favor C version? The wish to maintain the two implementations together
has been raised on the basis
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 19:41, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.orgwrote:
As we prepare to merge the io-c branch, the question has come up [1]
about the original Python implementation. Should it just be deleted in
favor C version? The wish to maintain the two implementations together
has
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 19:41, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org
wrote:
As we prepare to merge the io-c branch, the question has come up [1]
about the original Python implementation. Should it just be deleted in
favor C
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 19:41, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org
wrote:
As we prepare to merge the io-c branch, the question has come up [1]
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 19:41, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org
wrote:
As we prepare to merge the io-c branch, the question has come up [1]
about the original Python implementation. Should it
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 21:35, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 19:41, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org
wrote:
As we prepare to merge the io-c branch, the
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Currently, if I want to verify that (say) cFoo and Foo do the same thing, or
compare their speed, it's easy because I can import the modules separately.
Given the 3.0 approach, how would one access the Python versions
19 matches
Mail list logo
