Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!xlned.com!feeder7.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPTjJmqBs0PfQ5ahfURtSyCimPnFU-1HpFndO8h6T+Vbkj10Bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.4618.1373613834.3114.python-list@python.org> <571a6dfe-fd66-42cf-92fc-8b97cbe6e9e4@googlegroups.com> <51DFDE65.5040001@Gmail.com> <CAN1F8qUFP3uX57HhiiUPaYqO3h_HiT8Q_YD=vCYky3EAWsdE7Q@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.4666.1373670835.3114.python-list@python.org> <4f1067f6-bc99-42ad-9166-37fb228b90e8@googlegroups.com> <CAPTjJmoRUUuQgpjukkctnGe4ydHGYr2CEgD9uDtmBRHSejpW0g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+vVgJVxAHEk_Z4uzZFNYtmEFXmyyoo0Jg_rBeqHSDBuF0E1Ug@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmqBs0PfQ5ahfURtSyCimPnFU-1HpFndO8h6T+Vbkj10Bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:53:10 -0500
Subject: Re: RE Module Performance
To: Python <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.5120.1374785634.3114.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 42
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:51259

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:17 AM, David Hutto <dwightdhutto@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've screwed up plenty of times in python, but can write code like a pro
>> when I'm feeling better(on SSI and medicaid). An editor can be built simply,
>> but it's preference that makes the difference. Some might have used tkinter,
>> gtk. wxpython or other methods for the task.
>>
>> I think the main issue in responding is your library preference, or widget
>> set preference. These can make you right with some in your response, or
>> wrong with others that have a preferable gui library that coincides with
>> one's personal cognitive structure that makes t
>
> jmf's point is more about writing the editor widget (Scintilla, as
> opposed to SciTE), which most people will never bother to do. I've
> written several text editors, always by embedding someone else's
> widget, and therefore not concerning myself with its internal string
> representation. Frankly, Python's strings are a *terrible* internal
> representation for an editor widget - not because of PEP 393, but
> simply because they are immutable, and every keypress would result in
> a rebuilding of the string. On the flip side, I could quite plausibly
> imagine using a list of strings; whenever text gets inserted, the
> string gets split at that point, and a new string created for the
> insert (which also means that an Undo operation simply removes one
> entire string). In this usage, the FSR is beneficial, as it's possible
> to have different strings at different widths.
>
> But mainly, I'm just wondering how many people here have any basis
> from which to argue the point he's trying to make. I doubt most of us
> have (a) implemented an editor widget, or (b) tested multiple
> different internal representations to learn the true pros and cons of
> each. And even if any of us had, that still wouldn't have any bearing
> on PEP 393, which is about applications, not editor widgets. As stated
> above, Python strings before AND after PEP 393 are poor choices for an
> editor, ergo arguing from that standpoint is pretty useless. Not that
> that bothers jmf...

I think you've just motivated me to finally get around to writing the
custom output widget for my MUD client.  Of course that will be
simpler than a standard rich text editor widget, since it will never
receive input from the user and modifications will (typically) always
come in the form of append operations.  I intend to write it in pure
Python (well, wxPython), however.