On Sunday, 9 December 2012 22:17:09 UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 09/12/2012 14:11, Ramchandra Apte wrote:
peehole haha
Double spaced crap from you again not so haha.
--
Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
haha. What does Cheers mean?
--
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:23:47 -0800, Ramchandra Apte wrote:
Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
haha. What does Cheers mean?
It is an exclamation expressing good wishes. In particular, good wishes
before drinking. Think of it as a variation on:
Good health to you
Best wishes
Sincerest regards
only
On Dec 13, 11:01 am, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:23:47 -0800, Ramchandra Apte wrote:
Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
haha. What does Cheers mean?
It is an exclamation expressing good wishes. In particular, good wishes
before drinking.
On 12Dec2012 22:27, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
| On Dec 13, 11:01 am, Steven D'Aprano steve
| +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
| On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:23:47 -0800, Ramchandra Apte wrote:
| Cheers.
| Mark Lawrence.
|
| haha. What does Cheers mean?
|
| It is an exclamation
On Dec 13, 11:51 am, Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au wrote:
It looked good-natured, she thought; Still it had very long claws and a
great many teeth, so she felt it ought to be treated with respect.
heh!
If only we could respect without such coercion(s)
--
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:59 PM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 13, 11:51 am, Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au wrote:
It looked good-natured, she thought; Still it had very long claws and a
great many teeth, so she felt it ought to be treated with respect.
heh!
If only we could
On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 22:10:51 UTC+5:30, Bruno Dupuis wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 04:15:59PM +, Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2012-12-05, Bruno Dupuis python.ml.bruno.dup...@lisael.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm interested in compilers optimizations, so I study python
On 09/12/2012 14:11, Ramchandra Apte wrote:
peehole haha
Double spaced crap from you again not so haha.
--
Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Hi,
I'm interested in compilers optimizations, so I study python compilation process
I ran that script:
import timeit
def f(x):
return None
def g(x):
return None
print(x)
number = 1
print(timeit.timeit('f(1)',setup=from __main__ import f,
On 2012-12-05, Bruno Dupuis python.ml.bruno.dup...@lisael.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm interested in compilers optimizations, so I study python
compilation process
I ran that script:
import timeit
def f(x):
return None
def g(x):
return None
print(x)
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 04:15:59PM +, Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2012-12-05, Bruno Dupuis python.ml.bruno.dup...@lisael.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm interested in compilers optimizations, so I study python
compilation process
I ran that script:
import timeit
def f(x):
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 05:40:51PM +0100, Bruno Dupuis wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 04:15:59PM +, Neil Cerutti wrote:
Maybe it's the difference between LOAD_CONST and LOAD_GLOBAL. We
can wonder why g uses the latter.
Good point! I didn't even noticed that. It's weird... Maybe the
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:46:39 +0100, Bruno Dupuis wrote:
Hi,
I'm interested in compilers optimizations, so I study python compilation
process
I ran that script:
import timeit
def f(x):
return None
def g(x):
return None
print(x)
number
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 17:34:57 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I believe that's a leftover from
early Python days when None was not a keyword and could be reassigned.
Oops! Wrong copy and paste! Here's a simpler version:
[steve@ando ~]$ python1.5
Python 1.5.2 (#1, Aug 27 2012, 09:09:18) [GCC
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
The difference is almost certain between the LOAD_CONST and the
LOAD_GLOBAL.
As to *why* there is such a difference, I believe that's a leftover from
early Python days when None was not a keyword and
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 10:59:26AM -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
The difference is almost certain between the LOAD_CONST and the
LOAD_GLOBAL.
As to *why* there is such a difference, I believe that's a
On 12/5/2012 1:24 PM, Bruno Dupuis wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 10:59:26AM -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
The difference is almost certain between the LOAD_CONST and the
LOAD_GLOBAL.
As to *why* there is
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 12/5/2012 1:24 PM, Bruno Dupuis wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 10:59:26AM -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
I think this should even be considered a bug, not just a missing
optimization. Consider:
This is definitely a bug
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:41:19PM -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/5/2012 1:24 PM, Bruno Dupuis wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 10:59:26AM -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
The difference is almost certain
I added a patch on the issue tracker. It solves the bug for short
(32700 bytes) functions
ref : http://bugs.python.org/file28217/16619-1.patch
--
Bruno Dupuis
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Bruno Dupuis python.ml.bruno.dup...@lisael.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 05:40:51PM +0100, Bruno Dupuis wrote:
Good point! I didn't even noticed that. It's weird... Maybe the
difference comes from a peehole optim on f which is not possible on g as
g is to complex.
Neil, you were right,
21 matches
Mail list logo
