Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #104645 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-12 08:36 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-03-12 15:29 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 314 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 08:36 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 01:16 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 21:02 -0800
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 11:50 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 14:13 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 13:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 15:40 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-12 20:24 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 08:18 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-13 21:05 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 00:40 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-12 20:26 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 22:14 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-13 21:08 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-12 20:20 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:52 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 03:22 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 08:45 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-13 00:10 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 09:19 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-13 00:57 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 23:57 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-13 01:10 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-13 19:39 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-13 22:12 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 17:17 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 17:53 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-14 20:25 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 18:39 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 20:57 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 12:55 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:10 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 11:52 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 14:58 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 18:28 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:57 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-13 22:03 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-03-13 22:26 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:44 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-13 16:25 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 10:24 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 00:25 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-15 00:50 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 01:15 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 01:28 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 12:35 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 02:04 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:07 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-21 13:11 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-21 17:41 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 00:07 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-21 18:47 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 03:30 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 16:51 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-23 17:09 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 10:34 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 21:48 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 13:41 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 14:24 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 20:38 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 13:01 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-24 09:33 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-24 16:16 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 07:37 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 22:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 05:10 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 19:54 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 22:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-24 21:02 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 11:06 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 03:22 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 22:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 13:19 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-26 13:45 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 20:49 -0600
Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 02:50 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-25 18:57 +0200
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 13:46 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-25 22:56 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-25 19:59 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 23:21 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 00:22 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-26 14:09 +0000
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 01:30 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-26 15:24 +0000
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-26 23:34 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 12:31 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-27 09:47 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 15:43 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-27 08:48 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-27 12:39 -0400
Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-28 12:26 +1100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-28 15:34 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 17:58 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 21:18 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-27 14:55 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 23:11 +0100
Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-28 11:54 +1100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-27 18:40 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-29 19:26 +1100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-29 01:54 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 20:09 +1100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-29 12:23 +0300
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-29 12:31 +0100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-30 11:05 +1100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-29 08:15 -0400
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-28 12:11 +0100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-28 13:55 +0100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 20:14 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-29 23:49 -0400
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-30 15:26 +0100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 09:59 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-30 13:07 -0400
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 10:28 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-30 19:01 -0400
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-30 20:15 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-27 18:31 -0400
Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-28 12:45 +1100
Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-28 12:24 +1100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 12:38 +1100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2016-03-27 21:59 -0500
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 14:29 +1100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-28 13:18 +0100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-28 16:29 +0300
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-29 18:12 +1100
Re: Useless expressions Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-29 18:35 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-27 18:50 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 10:51 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-26 23:13 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-27 18:40 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 00:52 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 21:06 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 22:16 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-26 10:37 +0200
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 08:23 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-27 18:13 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 22:30 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 21:39 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 23:03 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 10:43 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-26 16:44 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 22:02 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 22:54 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 08:58 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-27 13:44 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 13:52 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-26 23:34 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 00:13 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-25 21:07 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 00:50 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 01:01 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:28 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-24 18:30 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:04 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 14:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:16 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-24 16:34 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:49 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-24 10:53 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 15:03 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 15:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 15:25 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-24 11:30 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 04:56 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 19:07 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 04:44 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Matt Wheeler <m@funkyhat.org> - 2016-03-24 14:22 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 14:51 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 04:27 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-24 21:24 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-24 18:14 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-24 08:30 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 16:12 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-24 10:13 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 18:03 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-24 17:30 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2016-03-23 10:57 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 22:28 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-23 08:40 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 16:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:24 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-24 10:55 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-23 20:12 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 11:15 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 01:12 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 23:21 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-23 20:26 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 16:09 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 03:59 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-21 17:38 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:15 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-21 09:20 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 02:02 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 19:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 19:57 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-21 13:18 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-21 18:59 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 12:01 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 11:05 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:15 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 12:59 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 00:13 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 13:46 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 01:02 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 15:07 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 02:18 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 14:02 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-22 07:15 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 01:31 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-23 12:14 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:21 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 13:43 -0600
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 09:23 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-23 17:07 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 17:28 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-22 04:23 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ian Foote <ian@feete.org> - 2016-03-22 11:27 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-22 07:45 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:55 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 23:15 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 23:03 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-22 14:52 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 00:00 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-22 15:15 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 00:24 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-22 15:32 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 00:38 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-22 15:49 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 22:17 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-20 22:21 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 12:34 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 23:59 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 00:48 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:04 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 02:09 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:39 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 02:45 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 17:12 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-21 20:20 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 06:02 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 13:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-03-21 13:17 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 02:11 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 17:31 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 18:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-21 19:20 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 00:49 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 02:01 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:15 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 17:53 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-22 09:24 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 07:44 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-21 20:13 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-21 05:08 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 12:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-21 06:12 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-21 19:50 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 00:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 00:42 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 01:00 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 13:49 -0600
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 13:01 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-13 02:30 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 22:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 08:48 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 11:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-12 11:27 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 13:51 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 13:42 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 16:38 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 03:56 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 17:54 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 20:07 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 18:30 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 20:39 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-13 13:16 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-14 14:01 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 13:00 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 14:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 16:21 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:55 -0600
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-14 19:45 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 20:31 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-03-14 22:00 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 21:17 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 21:00 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 12:27 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 01:35 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 13:12 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-15 08:25 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-15 09:20 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 12:02 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 23:20 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:17 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-15 12:14 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 12:19 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 12:11 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:10 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-12 23:28 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 00:06 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 15:12 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 02:30 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 16:42 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-12 17:02 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 12:20 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-13 01:32 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 13:03 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-13 13:33 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-13 01:43 -0500
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2016-03-13 09:14 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-12 19:03 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-12 15:29 +0000
Page 15 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 Next page →
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 14:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc6igh$7o7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104751 |
On 13/03/2016 09:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 04:54 am, BartC wrote:
>> Common sense tells you it is unlikely.
>
> Perhaps your common sense is different from other people's common sense. To
> me, and many other Python programmers, it's common sense that being able to
> replace functions or methods on the fly is a useful feature worth having.
> More on this below.
>
> Perhaps this is an example of the "Blub Paradox":
Perhaps it's time to talk about something which many languages have, but
Python hasn't. Not as far as I know anyway.
That's references to names (sometimes called pointers). So if I write:
a = 100
f(a)
then function f gets passed the value that a refers to, or 100 in this
case. But how do you pass 'a' itself?
Perhaps you can say:
f('a')
and f can do some sort of lookup, if it knows the caller's context, for
such a name and retrieve the value that way. But that's rather
heavy-handed, and f can't distinguish between a reference to a name, and
a string.
Unless maybe you wrap this up in a class and .... Well, you end up with
something that might emulate a name reference, but with so much
complexity and such overheads that it is not worthwhile.
Yet, this is a feature I use extensively, far more often than I would
use mutable functions. And in fact it was used in the code for my jpeg
example, where in the Python I has to use a workaround (see below).
I would argue that such references are more useful than mutable function
names, as the latter can be more easily emulated and with little or no
extra overheads.
-------------------------------------------------
Non-Python example of reference parameters:
fastidct8(
block[j], # each argument can be updated by the callee
block[j+8],
block[j+16],
block[j+24],
block[j+32],
block[j+40],
block[j+48],
block[j+56])
proc fastidct8(&a1,&a2,&a3,&a4,&a5,&a6,&a7,&a8) =
const w1 = 2841 # (Incidentally, here's a use-case for proper
const w2 = 2676 # consts. Evaluated at compile-time here ...
const w3 = 2408
const w5 = 1609
const w6 = 1108
const w7 = 565
....
a1 := (x8 + x2) >> 8
a2 := (x4 + x3) >> 8
a3 := (x1 + x5) >> 8
a4 := (x9 + x7) >> 8
a5 := (x9 - x7) >> 8
a6 := (x1 - x5) >> 8
a7 := (x4 - x3) >> 8
a8 := (x8 - x2) >> 8
end
Python version:
(block[j],
block[j+8],
block[j+16],
block[j+24],
block[j+32],
block[j+40],
block[j+48],
block[j+56]) = fastidct8(
block[j],
block[j+8],
block[j+16],
block[j+24],
block[j+32],
block[j+40],
block[j+48],
block[j+56])
def fastidct8(a1,a2,a3,a4,a5,a6,a7,a8):
w1 = 2841 # ... but at run-time in here)
w2 = 2676
w3 = 2408
w5 = 1609
w6 = 1108
w7 = 565
....
a1 = (x8 + x2) >> 8
a2 = (x4 + x3) >> 8
a3 = (x1 + x5) >> 8
a4 = (x9 + x7) >> 8
a5 = (x9 - x7) >> 8
a6 = (x1 - x5) >> 8
a7 = (x4 - x3) >> 8
a8 = (x8 - x2) >> 8
return [a1,a2,a3,a4,a5,a6,a7,a8]
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.114.1457972526.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #104816 |
On 14/03/2016 14:43, BartC wrote:
> On 13/03/2016 09:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 04:54 am, BartC wrote:
>
>>> Common sense tells you it is unlikely.
>>
>> Perhaps your common sense is different from other people's common
>> sense. To
>> me, and many other Python programmers, it's common sense that being
>> able to
>> replace functions or methods on the fly is a useful feature worth having.
>> More on this below.
>>
>> Perhaps this is an example of the "Blub Paradox":
>
> Perhaps it's time to talk about something which many languages have, but
> Python hasn't. Not as far as I know anyway.
>
> That's references to names (sometimes called pointers). So if I write:
>
> a = 100
> f(a)
>
> then function f gets passed the value that a refers to, or 100 in this
> case. But how do you pass 'a' itself?
>
> Perhaps you can say:
>
> f('a')
>
> and f can do some sort of lookup, if it knows the caller's context, for
> such a name and retrieve the value that way. But that's rather
> heavy-handed, and f can't distinguish between a reference to a name, and
> a string.
http://jeffknupp.com/blog/2012/11/13/is-python-callbyvalue-or-callbyreference-neither/
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 11:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.124.1457978118.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #104816 |
On 03/14/2016 08:43 AM, BartC wrote:
> But how do you pass 'a' itself?
>
> Perhaps you can say:
>
> f('a')
>
> and f can do some sort of lookup, if it knows the caller's context, for
> such a name and retrieve the value that way. But that's rather
> heavy-handed, and f can't distinguish between a reference to a name, and
> a string.
>
> Unless maybe you wrap this up in a class and .... Well, you end up with
> something that might emulate a name reference, but with so much
> complexity and such overheads that it is not worthwhile.
Maybe, but I don't think so. Is there really overhead in passing a
mutable object (a list) and working on it vs passing pieces of a list
one at a time? The lookup is the same, or maybe less. In your example,
you have to do lookups for each item going into the function, and then
again when you assign the new values back into place in your source
list. Passing the whole list into the function would seem to be faster.
> Yet, this is a feature I use extensively, far more often than I would
> use mutable functions. And in fact it was used in the code for my jpeg
> example, where in the Python I has to use a workaround (see below).
I think this is all just a matter of perspective. You seem convinced
that the C way is the only way to go from a performance standpoint. This
may or may not be true. There are certainly other paradigms. For example
functional programming disallows side-effects altogether. This allows
effortless chaining of functions, something you cannot do with your
function (subroutine really) that modifies things in place. Maybe you
need to reexamine what your basic data structures are and need to be.
If you need a block of mutable values to do your processing on, perhaps
that should be encapsulated into its own set of routines.
Sounds like this is a case where you could alter your method to better
fit Python's strengths, rather than work around it's differences or
weaknesses compared to a language like C.
But it could be that Python is ill-suited to this kind of bit-twiddling
and that C is the proper place to do it (Chris has argued for this from
the beginning).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 19:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QxEFy.1588526$Dn6.357665@fx46.am4> |
| In reply to | #104816 |
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:43:22 +0000, BartC wrote: > On 13/03/2016 09:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 04:54 am, BartC wrote: > >>> Common sense tells you it is unlikely. >> >> Perhaps your common sense is different from other people's common >> sense. To me, and many other Python programmers, it's common sense that >> being able to replace functions or methods on the fly is a useful >> feature worth having. More on this below. >> >> Perhaps this is an example of the "Blub Paradox": > > Perhaps it's time to talk about something which many languages have, but > Python hasn't. Not as far as I know anyway. > > That's references to names (sometimes called pointers). So if I write: > > a = 100 f(a) > > then function f gets passed the value that a refers to, or 100 in this > case. But how do you pass 'a' itself? Congratulations you have just proven that you have faild in your understanimg of python @ stage 1 becuae you keep tying to us it a C try the following def test(x): print (id(x) a=100 print (id(a)) test(a) a="Oops i was an idiot" print (id(a)) test(a) python always passes the object bound to a, not the value of a or a pointer to a
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 20:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc76sg$tou$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104856 |
On 14/03/2016 19:45, alister wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:43:22 +0000, BartC wrote:
>
>> On 13/03/2016 09:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 04:54 am, BartC wrote:
>>
>>>> Common sense tells you it is unlikely.
>>>
>>> Perhaps your common sense is different from other people's common
>>> sense. To me, and many other Python programmers, it's common sense that
>>> being able to replace functions or methods on the fly is a useful
>>> feature worth having. More on this below.
>>>
>>> Perhaps this is an example of the "Blub Paradox":
>>
>> Perhaps it's time to talk about something which many languages have, but
>> Python hasn't. Not as far as I know anyway.
>>
>> That's references to names (sometimes called pointers). So if I write:
>>
>> a = 100 f(a)
>>
>> then function f gets passed the value that a refers to, or 100 in this
>> case. But how do you pass 'a' itself?
> Congratulations
> you have just proven that you have faild in your understanimg of python @
> stage 1 becuae you keep tying to us it a C
>
> try the following
>
> def test(x):
> print (id(x)
>
> a=100
> print (id(a))
> test(a)
> a="Oops i was an idiot"
> print (id(a))
> test(a)
>
> python always passes the object bound to a, not the value of a or a
> pointer to a
Yes, and? I colloquially used 'value' instead of 'object', 'id' or
'reference'. The latter would added confusion as I'm talking about a
different kind of reference. And if you get rid of 'id' in your code,
you will get values displayed.
But how do you pass something that refers to a itself?
There are good reasons for wanting to do so. Try writing this function
in Python:
def swap(a,b):
b,a = a,b
x="one"
y="two"
swap(x,y)
print (x,y)
so that it displays "two" "one".
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 22:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc78k7$5fo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104857 |
Am 14.03.16 um 21:31 schrieb BartC: > There are good reasons for wanting to do so. Try writing this function > in Python: > > def swap(a,b): > b,a = a,b > > x="one" > y="two" > swap(x,y) > > print (x,y) > > so that it displays "two" "one". The pervert thing is that this is nearly there: def swap(a,b): c=[] c.append(*a) a[:]=b[:] b[:]=c[:] x=["one"] y=["two"] swap(x,y) print x print y Now with a similar example, I had created a bug some time ago. Try: import numpy def twice(x): x*=2 a=5 b=numpy.array(5) twice(a); twice(b) print a print b This is actually one of the warts in Python. Yes there are some explanations with boxes and arrows and sticky notes and mutable and immutable values... but actually you understand it best if you know how CPython works and that a list is passed as a pointer. Christian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 21:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc79je$9no$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104860 |
On 14/03/2016 21:00, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > Am 14.03.16 um 21:31 schrieb BartC: >> There are good reasons for wanting to do so. Try writing this function >> in Python: >> >> def swap(a,b): >> b,a = a,b >> >> x="one" >> y="two" >> swap(x,y) >> >> print (x,y) >> >> so that it displays "two" "one". > > The pervert thing is that this is nearly there: > > def swap(a,b): > c=[] > c.append(*a) > a[:]=b[:] > b[:]=c[:] > > x=["one"] > y=["two"] > > swap(x,y) > print x print y The list thing I've already tried. Although you've made it swap() more complicated than it need be. I used def swap(a,b): b[0],a[0]=a[0],b[0] (Perhaps yours swapped the entire lists not just the first element? But that didn't work when I tried your code.) The problem is that in general, x and y can be anything; maybe x is an element of a list, y is tuple. Even if by chance they were lists, then you'd want the entire list swapped. > > Now with a similar example, I had created a bug some time ago. It looks like you created a feature not a bug... -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 21:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.129.1457989515.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #104857 |
On 14/03/2016 20:31, BartC wrote: > On 14/03/2016 19:45, alister wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:43:22 +0000, BartC wrote: >> >>> On 13/03/2016 09:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 04:54 am, BartC wrote: >>> >>>>> Common sense tells you it is unlikely. >>>> >>>> Perhaps your common sense is different from other people's common >>>> sense. To me, and many other Python programmers, it's common sense that >>>> being able to replace functions or methods on the fly is a useful >>>> feature worth having. More on this below. >>>> >>>> Perhaps this is an example of the "Blub Paradox": >>> >>> Perhaps it's time to talk about something which many languages have, but >>> Python hasn't. Not as far as I know anyway. >>> >>> That's references to names (sometimes called pointers). So if I write: >>> >>> a = 100 f(a) >>> >>> then function f gets passed the value that a refers to, or 100 in this >>> case. But how do you pass 'a' itself? > >> Congratulations >> you have just proven that you have faild in your understanimg of python @ >> stage 1 becuae you keep tying to us it a C >> >> try the following >> >> def test(x): >> print (id(x) >> >> a=100 >> print (id(a)) >> test(a) >> a="Oops i was an idiot" >> print (id(a)) >> test(a) >> >> python always passes the object bound to a, not the value of a or a >> pointer to a > > Yes, and? I colloquially used 'value' instead of 'object', 'id' or > 'reference'. The latter would added confusion as I'm talking about a > different kind of reference. And if you get rid of 'id' in your code, > you will get values displayed. > > But how do you pass something that refers to a itself? > > There are good reasons for wanting to do so. Try writing this function > in Python: > > def swap(a,b): > b,a = a,b > > x="one" > y="two" > swap(x,y) > > print (x,y) > > so that it displays "two" "one". > Global. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 12:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56e764eb$0$1607$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #104857 |
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:31 am, BartC wrote: > But how do you pass something that refers to a itself? You can't. "Names" are not first-class values in Python. You can pass a string which represents a name, and a namespace, but you cannot pass just an unquoted name and have Python automatically resolve it as a writable reference to a name in a namespace. I'm only aware of a handful of languages which support this sort of reference semantics: Pascal (of course!), Algol uses the similar "pass by name" semantics using thunks, C++, and Visual Basic. > There are good reasons for wanting to do so. Try writing this function > in Python: > > def swap(a,b): > b,a = a,b You can't. But you don't need to. The idiomatic way to swap two values in Python is: a, b = b, a This works for any number of values: a, b, c, d = d, c, a, b and it even works (with care) for references other than bare names: a[0], a[1] = a[1], a[0] -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 01:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc7on4$u8s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104899 |
On 15/03/2016 01:27, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:31 am, BartC wrote: > >> But how do you pass something that refers to a itself? > > You can't. "Names" are not first-class values in Python. This was my real point. Python includes some odd features that you say are indispensable (mutable function names), but excludes others which are standard in some other languages. And name references are more difficult to emulate. > I'm only aware of a handful of languages which support this sort of > reference semantics: Pascal (of course!), Algol uses the similar "pass by > name" semantics using thunks, C++, and Visual Basic. Some of those use references to achieve what Python already does. For Python to have pass-by-reference, it would need references to references. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 13:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56e76f76$0$1606$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #104901 |
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:35 pm, BartC wrote: > On 15/03/2016 01:27, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:31 am, BartC wrote: >> >>> But how do you pass something that refers to a itself? >> >> You can't. "Names" are not first-class values in Python. > > This was my real point. Python includes some odd features that you say > are indispensable (mutable function names), but excludes others which > are standard in some other languages. Um, yes? All languages make choices about what features they allow. That's one of the reason why there are so many languages to choose from. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 08:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87fuvsuuja.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #104901 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com>:
> Python includes some odd features that you say are indispensable
> (mutable function names), but excludes others which are standard in
> some other languages.
Which is true for any programming language. Each of them comes with its
facilities and ways to go about things. You decide which of them you
find suitable for whatever purpose. However, I don't think you should
try to go against the grain of a programming language.
Of course, great new ideas can be found. It would be interesting, for
example, to turn names (or "slots") into first-class objects in Python.
It would be perfectly backward-compatible and would simplify some
expressions:
pool.intern(&self.s[n].x)
for:
self.s[n].x = pool.intern(self.s[n].x)
Just an example -- I don't feel a strong need for the
idea.
Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 09:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <stQFy.1601958$Dn6.1204021@fx46.am4> |
| In reply to | #104857 |
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:31:06 +0000, BartC wrote:
> On 14/03/2016 19:45, alister wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:43:22 +0000, BartC wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/03/2016 09:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 04:54 am, BartC wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Common sense tells you it is unlikely.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps your common sense is different from other people's common
>>>> sense. To me, and many other Python programmers, it's common sense
>>>> that being able to replace functions or methods on the fly is a
>>>> useful feature worth having. More on this below.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps this is an example of the "Blub Paradox":
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's time to talk about something which many languages have,
>>> but Python hasn't. Not as far as I know anyway.
>>>
>>> That's references to names (sometimes called pointers). So if I write:
>>>
>>> a = 100 f(a)
>>>
>>> then function f gets passed the value that a refers to, or 100 in this
>>> case. But how do you pass 'a' itself?
>
>> Congratulations you have just proven that you have faild in your
>> understanimg of python @
>> stage 1 becuae you keep tying to us it a C
>>
>> try the following
>>
>> def test(x):
>> print (id(x)
>>
>> a=100 print (id(a))
>> test(a)
>> a="Oops i was an idiot"
>> print (id(a))
>> test(a)
>>
>> python always passes the object bound to a, not the value of a or a
>> pointer to a
>
> Yes, and? I colloquially used 'value' instead of 'object', 'id' or
> 'reference'. The latter would added confusion as I'm talking about a
> different kind of reference. And if you get rid of 'id' in your code,
> you will get values displayed.
>
> But how do you pass something that refers to a itself?
>
> There are good reasons for wanting to do so. Try writing this function
> in Python:
>
> def swap(a,b):
> b,a = a,b
>
> x="one"
> y="two"
> swap(x,y)
>
> print (x,y)
>
> so that it displays "two" "one".
Why would i do somthing so pointless?
)
how does this grab you (it often catches newbies out)
def test(x):
a.append('oops')
a=['a list']
test(a)
print (a)
I sugest you may want to start reading a good python tutorial.
--
Between 1950 and 1952, a bored weatherman, stationed north of Hudson
Bay, left a monument that neither government nor time can eradicate.
Using a bulldozer abandoned by the Air Force, he spent two years and
great effort pushing boulders into a single word.
It can be seen from 10,000 feet, silhouetted against the snow.
Government officials exchanged memos full of circumlocutions (no Latin
equivalent exists) but failed to word an appropriation bill for the
destruction of this cairn, that wouldn't alert the press and embarrass
both Parliament and Party.
It stands today, a monument to human spirit. If life exists on other
planets, this may be the first message received from us.
-- The Realist, November, 1964.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 12:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc8tfa$514$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104927 |
On 15/03/2016 09:20, alister wrote:
> Why would i do somthing so pointless?
Name references are pointless? OK, you're the expert ...
> how does this grab you (it often catches newbies out)
>
> def test(x):
> a.append('oops')
>
> a=['a list']
> test(a)
> print (a)
Not any more.
>
> I sugest you may want to start reading a good python tutorial.
Last year I started implementing a Python clone. I stopped the project
because it meant losing too many features I was used to. Also I had
doubts whether I could even make it as fast as CPython (which had a
25-year head start).
I've since introduced some aspects of Python (object references) into an
existing language, while still keeping name references.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, trying to implement a language is also a
good way of learning it, especially of finding out how it works.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 23:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.161.1458044431.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #104937 |
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:02 PM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > Anyway, what I'm saying is, trying to implement a language is also a good > way of learning it, especially of finding out how it works. Same goes for a lot of things. Want to know how Windows ticks? Try reimplementing it - or read the comments left behind by people who've done that, by browsing the Wine sources. There have been times when I've been trying to figure out how to use a particular Windows API function or window message, and couldn't understand some edge case based solely on the docs, so I dug into the Wine source code, found how they did it (and in at least one case, found a comment stating that observed behaviour differed from the docs!), and was able to deploy to Windows on that basis. I'm sure implementing Python is a lot more fun than reimplementing Windows APIs! ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 11:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c284dabf-a216-4362-a121-a97886f8d866@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104938 |
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:21:02 AM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote: > I'm sure implementing Python is a lot more fun than reimplementing > Windows APIs! There's not much on this earth, that is worse than Windows APIs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 12:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87egbcdp5c.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #104857 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com>:
> But how do you pass something that refers to a itself?
>
> There are good reasons for wanting to do so. Try writing this function
> in Python:
>
> def swap(a,b):
> b,a = a,b
Have you tried writing same function in Java? Java is a hugely
successful, highly performant programming language that suffers from the
same "flaw." It doesn't allow you to call functions by reference.
Python has it easier because multiple values can be returned in a tuple,
but ad hoc tuples don't exist in Java. Thus, arrays are commonly used to
implement a sort of pass-by-reference. Here's how to demonstrate the
idea in Python:
def swap(aref, bref):
aref[0], bref[0] = bref[0], aref[0]
x = "one"
y = "two"
xref = [x]
yref = [y]
swap(xref, yref)
x = xref[0]
y = yref[0]
print(x, y)
Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 12:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56e76313$0$1589$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #104856 |
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 06:45 am, alister wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:43:22 +0000, BartC wrote: [...] > > Perhaps it's time to talk about something which many languages have, but > > Python hasn't. Not as far as I know anyway. > > >> That's references to names (sometimes called pointers). So if I write: >> >> a = 100 f(a) >> >> then function f gets passed the value that a refers to, or 100 in this >> case. But how do you pass 'a' itself? > Congratulations > you have just proven that you have faild in your understanimg of python @ > stage 1 becuae you keep tying to us it a C Bart is specifically giving this as an example of something that *Python cannot do*. Just like it says, in his first paragraph. I think that, in a discussion of Python's strengths and weaknesses, it is reasonable to discuss features of other languages that Python doesn't do. Don't you? [...] > python always passes the object bound to a, not the value of a or a > pointer to a You might want to slow down a bit and think about this. What is "the value of a"? Surely it must be *the object bound to a*. What else could it be? In Python, all values are objects. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 12:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56e7613d$0$1607$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #104816 |
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:43 am, BartC wrote:
> On 13/03/2016 09:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 04:54 am, BartC wrote:
>
>>> Common sense tells you it is unlikely.
>>
>> Perhaps your common sense is different from other people's common sense.
>> To me, and many other Python programmers, it's common sense that being
>> able to replace functions or methods on the fly is a useful feature worth
>> having. More on this below.
>>
>> Perhaps this is an example of the "Blub Paradox":
>
> Perhaps it's time to talk about something which many languages have, but
> Python hasn't. Not as far as I know anyway.
>
> That's references to names (sometimes called pointers).
Calling them "pointers" is misleading and wrong. What you're referring to
are better known as "reference parameters".
C++ has such "call-by-reference", as does Pascal, using "var" parameters.
Algol uses something similar, but instead of call-by-reference it uses
call-by-name.
Like most modern languages, Python doesn't directly support
call-by-reference, but it is easily emulated with any mutable object. The
easiest is perhaps a single element list:
def f(ref):
ref[0] = 200
a = [100]
f(a)
print a[0]
but in general, such side-effects are frowned upon, and using a more
functional-style without side-effects is better. Why modify a in place by
magic when you can explicitly assign a new value to a?
Also, you might like to read this:
Does Python pass by reference or value?
http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/1130.html
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 23:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.35.1457784611.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #104690 |
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:08 PM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> You're not mistaken. There are no "character constants" in Python.
>>> (Note that the definition would be Unicode codepoints, rather than
>>> ASCII values.) I don't often miss them, though.
>
>> Yes, a complete non-issue.
>
>
> Really? The issue as I see it is this:
>
> Writing: a=65 generates this byte-code for the right-hand-side:
>
> LOAD_CONST 1 (65) An integer
>
> But writing instead: a=ord('A') generates this:
>
> LOAD_GLOBAL 0 (ord)
> LOAD_CONST 1 ('A') A string
> CALL_FUNCTION 1
I think the "non-issue" here is the difference between ASCII and
Unicode. Either way, there's no way to say "the integer with the
codepoint of this character" as a literal. But that's actually not
even all that necessary, because subscripting a text string yields
one-character strings - you almost never need the ordinals.
Subscripting a byte string in Py3 yields integers, so you might need
ordinals for ASCII byte values. But you can get them the same way:
>>> dis.dis(lambda: b"a"[0])
1 0 LOAD_CONST 3 (97)
3 RETURN_VALUE
>>> dis.dis(lambda: u"a"[0])
1 0 LOAD_CONST 3 ('a')
3 RETURN_VALUE
Whichever one you need, you can get as a compile-time constant.
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web