On 13.04.2011 02:07, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:50:34 -0400
Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Trying to accelerate existing code which doesn't have the coverage is
insane: how can you know that the accelerator doesn't subtly change the
semantics without tests?
Georg Brandl, 13.04.2011 08:54:
On 13.04.2011 02:07, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:50:34 -0400
Tres Seaver wrote:
Trying to accelerate existing code which doesn't have the coverage is
insane: how can you know that the accelerator doesn't subtly change the
semantics without
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
However, I think we are really discussing a theoretical issue here. All the
PEP is trying to achieve is to raise the bar for C code in the stdlib, for
exactly the reason that it can easily introduce subtle semantic
On 4/13/2011 7:52 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200
Stefan Behnelstefan...@behnel.de wrote:
I think it would help to point out in the PEP that code that fails to touch
the theoretical 100% test coverage bar is not automatically excluded from
integration, but needs
On Apr 13, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
However, I think we are really discussing a theoretical issue here. All the
PEP is trying to achieve is to raise the bar for C code in the stdlib, for
exactly
Antoine Pitrou, 13.04.2011 02:07:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:50:34 -0400
Tres Seaver wrote:
Trying to accelerate existing code which doesn't have the coverage is
insane: how can you know that the accelerator doesn't subtly change the
semantics without tests?
Well, why do you think tests
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:59:53 +0200
brett.cannon python-check...@python.org wrote:
Technical details of
+the VM providing the accelerated code are allowed to differ as
+necessary, e.g., a class being a ``type`` when implemented in C.
I don't understand what this means (a class being a ``type``
2011/4/12 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:59:53 +0200
brett.cannon python-check...@python.org wrote:
Technical details of
+the VM providing the accelerated code are allowed to differ as
+necessary, e.g., a class being a ``type`` when implemented in C.
I don't
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:34:42 -0500
Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
2011/4/12 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:59:53 +0200
brett.cannon python-check...@python.org wrote:
Technical details of
+the VM providing the accelerated code are allowed to differ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/12/2011 06:31 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:59:53 +0200
brett.cannon python-check...@python.org wrote:
Technical details of
+the VM providing the accelerated code are allowed to differ as
+necessary, e.g., a class being a
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:50:34 -0400
Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
Trying to accelerate existing code which doesn't have the coverage is
insane: how can you know that the accelerator doesn't subtly change the
semantics without tests?
Well, why do you think tests guarantee that the
On Apr 12, 2011, at 7:50 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
Trying to accelerate existing code which doesn't have the coverage is
insane: how can you know that the accelerator doesn't subtly change the
semantics without tests?
But even if you do have 100% python source code branch coverage, that's not
Antoine Pitrou, 13.04.2011 02:07:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:50:34 -0400
Tres Seaver wrote:
Trying to accelerate existing code which doesn't have the coverage is
insane: how can you know that the accelerator doesn't subtly change the
semantics without tests?
Well, why do you think tests
13 matches
Mail list logo
