Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #42196
| Path | csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!rt.uk.eu.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| Return-Path | <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> |
| X-Original-To | python-list@python.org |
| Delivered-To | python-list@mail.python.org |
| X-Spam-Status | OK 0.000 |
| X-Spam-Evidence | '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'remind': 0.05; 'represents': 0.05; 'string.': 0.05; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'extent': 0.07; 'modify': 0.07; 'users,': 0.07; 'utf-8': 0.07; 'string': 0.09; 'arrays': 0.09; 'ascii': 0.09; 'bytes.': 0.09; 'character,': 0.09; 'converts': 0.09; 'false.': 0.09; 'strings.': 0.09; 'subject: [': 0.09; 'api': 0.11; 'python': 0.11; '*always*': 0.16; '[*]': 0.16; 'benjamin': 0.16; 'character.': 0.16; 'corresponds': 0.16; 'cp1252': 0.16; 'did.': 0.16; 'encodings': 0.16; 'endian': 0.16; 'from:addr:mrabarnett.plus.com': 0.16; 'from:addr:python': 0.16; 'from:name:mrab': 0.16; 'internally': 0.16; 'inverse': 0.16; 'invisible': 0.16; 'message- id:@mrabarnett.plus.com': 0.16; 'only)': 0.16; 'received:84.93': 0.16; 'received:84.93.230': 0.16; 'safely.': 0.16; 'situation.': 0.16; 'stuff.': 0.16; 'subject: \n ': 0.16; 'truncate': 0.16; 'truncation': 0.16; 'unicode.': 0.16; 'variants': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'pointed': 0.19; "python's": 0.19; 'thu,': 0.19; 'user.': 0.19; '(the': 0.22; 'memory': 0.22; 'coding': 0.22; 'putting': 0.22; 'saying': 0.22; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'byte': 0.24; 'bytes': 0.24; 'case.': 0.24; 'oriented': 0.24; 'sorry,': 0.24; 'unicode': 0.24; 'java': 0.24; 'non': 0.24; 'regardless': 0.24; "i've": 0.25; 'source': 0.25; 'define': 0.26; '----------': 0.26; 'subject:/': 0.26; 'defined': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'point': 0.28; 'function': 0.29; 'am,': 0.29; 'array': 0.29; 'character': 0.29; 'characters': 0.30; 'especially': 0.30; "i'm": 0.30; 'code': 0.31; 'decimal': 0.31; '-----': 0.33; 'actual': 0.34; 'could': 0.34; 'problem': 0.35; 'one,': 0.35; 'point.': 0.35; 'prepare': 0.35; 'received:84': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'version': 0.36; 'european': 0.36; 'scheme': 0.36; 'possible': 0.36; 'application': 0.37; 'step': 0.37; 'being': 0.38; 'implement': 0.38; 'represent': 0.38; 'product.': 0.38; 'subject:]': 0.38; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'previous': 0.38; 'little': 0.38; 'explain': 0.39; 'does': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'enough': 0.39; 'either': 0.39; 'major': 0.40; 'how': 0.40; 'ensure': 0.60; 'even': 0.60; 'algorithms': 0.60; 'consists': 0.60; 'ian': 0.60; 'length': 0.61; 'mentioned': 0.61; 'new': 0.61; 'range': 0.61; 'simply': 0.61; "you're": 0.61; 'discuss': 0.62; 'back': 0.62; 'soon': 0.63; 'valuable': 0.63; 'became': 0.64; 'map': 0.64; 'therefore,': 0.64; 'more': 0.64; 'charset:windows-1252': 0.65; 'between': 0.67; 'header:Reply-To:1': 0.67; 'mar': 0.68; 'wish': 0.70; 'reply-to:no real name:2**0': 0.71; 'further,': 0.74; 'characters,': 0.84; 'divide': 0.84; 'dry': 0.84; 'examples.': 0.84; 'irrelevant': 0.84; 'reply-to:addr:python.org': 0.84; 'subject:long': 0.84; 'western': 0.86; '2013': 0.98 |
| X-CM-Score | 0.00 |
| X-CNFS-Analysis | v=2.0 cv=HO4d4PRv c=1 sm=1 a=0nF1XD0wxitMEM03M9B4ZQ==:17 a=B68SgI_Jlq8A:10 a=d5osE0Bd0hoA:10 a=ihvODaAuJD4A:10 a=OUOv7kDek9cA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=EBOSESyhAAAA:8 a=8AHkEIZyAAAA:8 a=ZSPP0T9P_JwA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=Hm2Oo-_KcwTwIvWiitkA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=JGs2HBQ9vcIC0_RZ:21 a=Nkih4O7cLwSSqj9i:21 a=0nF1XD0wxitMEM03M9B4ZQ==:117 |
| X-AUTH | mrabarnett:2500 |
| Date | Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:50:14 +0000 |
| From | MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> |
| User-Agent | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| To | python-list@python.org |
| Subject | Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] |
| References | <mailman.3703.1364248275.2939.python-list@python.org> <kit1kg$g2u$1@ger.gmane.org> <nad-98F0A4.17004226032013@news.gmane.org> <kitdqr$4m4$2@ger.gmane.org> <nad-8CB9C0.18315026032013@news.gmane.org> <mailman.3805.1364385073.2939.python-list@python.org> <5153a12d$0$29998$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.3845.1364441182.2939.python-list@python.org> <d2cc443a-e049-42ed-abc6-66b5ea600fe7@j1g2000pbq.googlegroups.com> <mailman.3860.1364451682.2939.python-list@python.org> <987c4bd9-0e5e-4387-9c78-1075a77d3c47@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <mailman.3868.1364466636.2939.python-list@python.org> <b3808ea9-03fa-4781-aefe-af428899ee9c@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com> <mailman.3901.1364488470.2939.python-list@python.org> <7f993624-8105-4055-a268-3417e5fe21dc@g4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <mailman.3913.1364502948.2939.python-list@python.org> <691c604c-b643-4d66-a2ea-c5c52d603316@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In-Reply-To | <691c604c-b643-4d66-a2ea-c5c52d603316@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 8bit |
| X-BeenThere | python-list@python.org |
| X-Mailman-Version | 2.1.15 |
| Precedence | list |
| Reply-To | python-list@python.org |
| List-Id | General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org> |
| List-Unsubscribe | <http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe> |
| List-Archive | <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/> |
| List-Post | <mailto:python-list@python.org> |
| List-Help | <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help> |
| List-Subscribe | <http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3916.1364507414.2939.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
| Lines | 102 |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 2001:888:2000:d::a6 |
| X-Trace | 1364507414 news.xs4all.nl 6964 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:49367 |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@xs4all.nl |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.python:42196 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On 28/03/2013 21:11, jmfauth wrote: > On 28 mar, 21:29, Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kap...@case.edu> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:48 AM, jmfauth <wxjmfa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 28 mar, 17:33, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:34 AM, jmfauth <wxjmfa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > The flexible string representation takes the problem from the >> >> > other side, it attempts to work with the characters by using >> >> > their representations and it (can only) fails... >> >> >> This is false. As I've pointed out to you before, the FSR does not >> >> divide characters up by representation. It divides them up by >> >> codepoint -- more specifically, by the *bit-width* of the codepoint. >> >> We call the internal format of the string "ASCII" or "Latin-1" or >> >> "UCS-2" for conciseness and a point of reference, but fundamentally >> >> all of the FSR formats are simply byte arrays of *codepoints* -- you >> >> know, those things you keep harping on. The major optimization >> >> performed by the FSR is to consistently truncate the leading zero >> >> bytes from each codepoint when it is possible to do so safely. But >> >> regardless of to what extent this truncation is applied, the string is >> >> *always* internally just an array of codepoints, and the same >> >> algorithms apply for all representations. >> >> > ----- >> >> > You know, we can discuss this ad nauseam. What is important >> > is Unicode. >> >> > You have transformed Python back in an ascii oriented product. >> >> > If Python had imlemented Unicode correctly, there would >> > be no difference in using an "a", "é", "€" or any character, >> > what the narrow builds did. >> >> > If I am practically the only one, who speakes /discusses about >> > this, I can ensure you, this has been noticed. >> >> > Now, it's time to prepare the Asparagus, the "jambon cru" >> > and a good bottle a dry white wine. >> >> > jmf >> >> You still have yet to explain how Python's string representation is >> wrong. Just how it isn't optimal for one specific case. Here's how I >> understand it: >> >> 1) Strings are sequences of stuff. Generally, we talk about strings as >> either sequences of bytes or sequences of characters. >> >> 2) Unicode is a format used to represent characters. Therefore, >> Unicode strings are character strings, not byte strings. >> >> 2) Encodings are functions that map characters to bytes. They >> typically also define an inverse function that converts from bytes >> back to characters. >> >> 3) UTF-8 IS NOT UNICODE. It is an encoding- one of those functions I >> mentioned in the previous point. It happens to be one of the five >> standard encodings that is defined for all characters in the Unicode >> standard (the others being the little and big endian variants of >> UTF-16 and UTF-32). >> >> 4) The internal representation of a character string DOES NOT MATTER. >> All that matters is that the API represents it as a string of >> characters, regardless of the representation. We could implement >> character strings by putting the Unicode code-points in binary-coded >> decimal and it would be a Unicode character string. >> >> 5) The String type that .NET and Java (and unicode type in Python >> narrow builds) use is not a character string. It is a string of >> shorts, each of which corresponds to a UTF-16 code point. I know this >> is the case because in all of these, the length of "\u1f435" is 2 even >> though it only consists of one character. >> >> 6) The new string representation in Python 3.3 can successfully >> represent all characters in the Unicode standard. The actual number of >> bytes that each character consumes is invisible to the user. > > ---------- > > > I shew enough examples. As soon as you are using non latin-1 chars > your "optimization" just became irrelevant and not only this, you > are penalized. > > I'm sorry, saying Python now is just covering the whole unicode > range is not a valuable excuse. I prefer a "correct" version with > a narrower range of chars, especially if this range represents > the "daily used chars". > > I can go a step further, if I wish to write an application for > Western European users, I'm better served if I'm using a coding > scheme covering all thesee languages/scripts. What about cp1252 [*]? > Does this not remind somthing? > > Python can do better, it only succeeds to do worth! > > [*] yes, I kwnow, internally .... > If you're that concerned about it, why don't you modify the source code so that the string representation chooses between only 2 bytes and 4 bytes per codepoint, and then see whether that you prefer that situation. How do the memory usage and speed compare?
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-26 08:51 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Cousin Stanley <cousinstanley@gmail.com> - 2013-03-25 23:35 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2013-03-25 17:12 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-26 17:26 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Cousin Stanley <cousinstanley@gmail.com> - 2013-03-26 13:38 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 01:08 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Cousin Stanley <cousinstanley@gmail.com> - 2013-03-26 16:41 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 03:54 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-03-26 14:24 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-26 11:50 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 06:03 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-26 13:44 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-26 20:50 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-26 21:08 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 08:14 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2013-03-27 12:10 +1300
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-03-26 19:19 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-26 21:26 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-03-26 17:28 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-03-26 23:14 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 13:30 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 07:52 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> - 2013-03-26 17:00 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-03-26 21:31 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-27 00:20 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> - 2013-03-26 18:31 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-27 11:51 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-28 01:47 +0000
flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-03-27 20:18 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 20:49 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-28 05:20 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-03-27 22:42 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-28 07:48 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-03-28 12:54 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-03-28 13:31 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-29 14:52 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-03-29 08:51 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-03-29 16:50 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-03-29 14:26 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-03-29 16:07 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-31 00:35 -0700
ASCII versus non-ASCII [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-31 08:22 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-31 13:55 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-03-31 22:33 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-03-31 23:52 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-01 16:57 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-01 08:14 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-01 08:15 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-01 06:11 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-01 17:02 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-01 17:07 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 04:20 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-04-01 18:53 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-01 12:15 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 06:28 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-01 13:28 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 07:35 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-01 22:38 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-01 22:43 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-02 10:43 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 00:24 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 19:03 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-02 08:35 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 02:24 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-02 10:43 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 11:58 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 06:42 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-02 14:03 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 15:39 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-02 16:02 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 08:12 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-02 16:43 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 10:08 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-04-02 17:33 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 23:40 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-04-02 08:09 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-02 15:12 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 16:03 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-04-02 08:17 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 09:57 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 11:22 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 11:50 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Lele Gaifax <lele@metapensiero.it> - 2013-04-03 00:52 +0200
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 02:20 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 13:44 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 14:31 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 20:53 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 15:03 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-02 22:11 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 17:22 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 09:28 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-04 00:38 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 00:10 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 19:15 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 09:25 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-04 00:34 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-03 05:32 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-04-03 02:19 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 17:27 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 17:25 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 17:29 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 17:52 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 01:06 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 18:24 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 18:37 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 01:07 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 19:22 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-03 06:20 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-03 22:05 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-03 07:52 -0400
Sorting [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-03 14:43 +0000
Re: Sorting [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 11:00 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 10:30 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-03 13:51 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-04 09:58 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-03 07:53 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 19:02 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 01:08 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-03 12:27 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 09:43 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-04 01:17 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-03 15:07 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-04 08:57 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 12:09 +0300
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-07 07:24 +1000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-04-06 14:58 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-07 01:29 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 19:58 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-06 22:18 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 23:22 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-07 08:29 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 20:00 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> - 2013-04-07 11:02 +0300
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-07 16:14 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-03 15:02 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 10:38 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-03 17:43 +0000
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-04 08:55 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-03 23:39 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 20:49 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 09:10 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-04-03 10:09 -0700
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-03 20:46 -0400
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 10:53 -0600
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-04-02 20:28 +1100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-03 14:56 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-01 20:54 +0100
Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3 roy@panix.com (Roy Smith) - 2013-04-01 16:31 -0400
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-29 00:35 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 21:22 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> - 2013-03-28 13:23 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-03-27 23:12 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 02:03 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ian Foote <ian@feete.org> - 2013-03-28 09:36 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-03-28 23:11 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-28 13:01 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 07:12 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 01:38 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 08:14 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 02:21 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 08:45 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-03-28 12:01 -0400
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 10:11 -0600
Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-29 00:39 +0000
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 11:54 +1100
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-03-29 02:37 +0000
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 13:44 +1100
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 00:11 -0600
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 00:22 -0600
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-03-29 14:06 -0400
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation Christian Heimes <christian@python.org> - 2013-03-29 23:05 +0100
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-29 01:03 +0000
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 12:10 +1100
Re: Surrogate pairs in new flexible string representation [was Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-03-29 02:00 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 03:16 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 10:01 -0600
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-03-29 14:34 +1100
unicode and the FSR [was: Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3]] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-03-28 21:56 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 16:33 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-03-29 16:46 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-03-28 14:51 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-03-29 14:57 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 02:07 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 09:47 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 21:30 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 06:34 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 10:33 -0600
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 09:55 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 04:13 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 10:48 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 04:55 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 13:26 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 08:45 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-03-28 19:12 -0400
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2013-03-28 13:29 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 14:11 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 14:33 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-03-28 21:50 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2013-03-28 14:52 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-03-28 19:53 -0400
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-29 11:03 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-29 00:15 +0000
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-03-28 14:40 +1100
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2013-03-28 16:04 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2013-03-28 16:04 -0700
Re: flaming vs accuracy [was Re: Performance of int/long in Python 3] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-28 12:39 +0000
csiph-web