Hi Greg,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Greg Ewing
greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
If it's that unreliable, why was it ever implemented
in the first place?
I was young and loved hacks and python-dev felt that it was a good
idea at the time
On 13.02.13 08:42, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Something is needed - a patch for PyPy or for the documentation I guess.
Not arguing that it wouldn't be good, but I disagree that it is needed.
This is only an issue when you, as in your proof, have a loop that
does concatenation. This is usually when
On 13/02/13 10:53, Christian Tismer wrote:
Hi friends,
_efficient string concatenation_ has been a topic in 2004.
Armin Rigo proposed a patch with the name of the subject,
more precisely:
/[Patches] [ python-Patches-980695 ] efficient string concatenation//
//on sourceforge.net, on
On 13.02.13 13:10, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On 13/02/13 10:53, Christian Tismer wrote:
Hi friends,
_efficient string concatenation_ has been a topic in 2004.
Armin Rigo proposed a patch with the name of the subject,
more precisely:
/[Patches] [ python-Patches-980695 ] efficient string
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Christian Tismer tis...@stackless.com wrote:
To avoid such hidden traps in larger code bases, documentation is
needed that clearly gives a warning saying don't do that, like CS
students learn for most other languages.
How much more explicit do you want us to
Hey Nick,
On 13.02.13 15:44, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Christian Tismer tis...@stackless.com wrote:
To avoid such hidden traps in larger code bases, documentation is
needed that clearly gives a warning saying don't do that, like CS
students learn for most other
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:07:22 +0100, Christian Tismer tis...@stackless.com
wrote:
I think before getting people to work through long and
complete documentation, it is probably easier to wake their interest
by something like
Hey, are you doing things this way?
And then there is a short,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The documentation for strings is also clear that you should not rely on
this
optimization:
...
It
can, and does, fail on CPython as well, as it is sensitive to memory
allocation details.
If it's that unreliable, why was it ever implemented
in the first place?
--
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Greg Ewing
greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The documentation for strings is also clear that you should not rely on
this
optimization:
...
It
can, and does, fail on CPython as well, as it is sensitive to memory
allocation
Hi Lennart,
Sent from my Ei4Steve
On Feb 13, 2013, at 8:42, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
Something is needed - a patch for PyPy or for the documentation I guess.
Not arguing that it wouldn't be good, but I disagree that it is needed.
This is only an issue when you, as in your
On 13.02.13 22:52, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Greg Ewing
greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The documentation for strings is also clear that you should not rely on
this
optimization:
...
It
can, and does, fail on CPython as well, as it
Hi friends,
_efficient string concatenation_ has been a topic in 2004.
Armin Rigo proposed a patch with the name of the subject,
more precisely:
/[Patches] [ python-Patches-980695 ] efficient string concatenation//
//on sourceforge.net, on 2004-06-28.//
/
This patch was finally added to Python
Something is needed - a patch for PyPy or for the documentation I guess.
Not arguing that it wouldn't be good, but I disagree that it is needed.
This is only an issue when you, as in your proof, have a loop that
does concatenation. This is usually when looping over a list of
strings that should
13 matches
Mail list logo
