Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!newsfeed.eweka.nl!eweka.nl!feeder3.eweka.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:04:43 -0700
From: Andrew Robinson <andrew3@r3dsolutions.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111126 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Negative array indicies and slice()
References: <6998a955-7b34-4f4f-b8d6-62d1028f7561@googlegroups.com> <mailman.2986.1351482209.27098.python-list@python.org> <4c024364-84df-403b-8b9e-4a4c8f06121c@googlegroups.com> <mailman.2991.1351484760.27098.python-list@python.org> <cd108b9d-e951-463e-8e50-a5a024a27c7f@googlegroups.com> <508e6649$0$29967$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <508E1BC9.3000308@r3dsolutions.com> <CALwzid=rhea2aMXM_St2FwTiAx+cnZ20_H6RtwW0_81uSQAFBQ@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.3053.1351550917.27098.python-list@python.org> <508f1910$0$29967$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <508EDA40.8020003@r3dsolutions.com> <508F6B58.6060207@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <508F6B58.6060207@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Reply-To: andrew3@r3dsolutions.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.3078.1351581043.27098.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 32
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:32471

On 10/29/2012 10:53 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 01:34 PM, Andrew Robinson wrote:
>> No, I don't think it big and complicated.  I do think it has timing
>> implications which are undesirable because of how *much* slices are used.
>> In an embedded target -- I have to optimize; and I will have to reject
>> certain parts of Python to make it fit and run fast enough to be useful.
> Since you can't port the full Python system to your embedded machine
> anyway, why not just port a subset of python and modify it to suit your
> needs right there in the C code.  It would be a fork, yes,
You're exactly right;  That's what I *know* I am faced with.

>    Without a libc, an MMU on the CPU, and a kernel, it's not going to just compile and run.
I have libc.  The MMU is a problem; but the compiler implements the 
standard "C" math library; floats, though, instead of doubles.  That's 
the only problem -- there.
>   What you want with slicing behavior changes has no
> place in the normal cPython implementation, for a lot of reasons.  The
> main one is that it is already possible to implement what you are
> talking about in your own python class, which is a fine solution for a
> normal computer with memory and CPU power available.
If the tests I outlined in the previous post inaccurately describe a 
major performance improvement and at least a modest code size reduction; 
or will *often* introduce bugs -- I *AGREE* with you.

Otherwise, I don't.  I don't think wasting extra CPU power is a good 
thing -- Extra CPU power can always be used by something else....

I won't belabor the point further.  I'd love to see a counter example to 
the specific criteria I just provided to IAN -- it would end my quest; 
and be a good reference to point others to.