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 12 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 16 Next page →
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 22:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.4.1458647721.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105459 |
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber
<wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:05:01 +0000, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> declaimed the
> following:
>
>>
>>But out of interest, how would /you/ write a function that takes a
>>file-spec and turns it into an in-memory string? And what would its use
>>look like?
>>
> At the basics -- and letting the garbage collector get the file handle
> later...
>
> imstr = open(fileName, "r").read()
>
> If you want a separate function... (the name here stinks, but...)
>
> def fn2str(fileName):
> fin = open(fileName, "r")
> imstr = fin.read()
> fin.close()
> return imstr
>
> ...
> data = fn2str("some.file")
>
> letting any exceptions propagate upwards.
While we're on the subject of Pythonic ways to read files, this is NOT.
http://thedailywtf.com/articles/finding-the-file
It's also not idiomatic C# code either, though...
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 23:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56f1375c$0$1600$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105468 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:55 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> While we're on the subject of Pythonic ways to read files, this is NOT.
>
> http://thedailywtf.com/articles/finding-the-file
>
> It's also not idiomatic C# code either, though...
Obviously not. They should have used a switch.
I like the comment from "PWolff":
A loop might be faster to write (for a human) and easier
to maintain, but it takes significantly longer to run.
(Several ppm in this case, I assume.)
(PPM? Parts per million?)
Unless PWolff is being too-ironic-by-half, I expect to see his work featured
on The Daily WTF soon.
I like this one:
http://thedailywtf.com/articles/string-cheese
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 23:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56f134a3$0$1612$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105459 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:05 pm, BartC wrote:
> On 22/03/2016 01:01, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:43 am, BartC wrote:
>>
>>> This code was adapted from a program that used:
>>>
>>> readstrfile(filename)
>>>
>>> which either returned the contents of the file as a string, or 0.
>>
>> What an interesting function. And I don't mean that in a good way.
>>
>> So if it returns 0, how do you know what the problem is? Mistyped file
>> name? Permission denied? File doesn't actually exist? Disk corruption and
>> you can't open the file? Some weird OS problem where you can't *close*
>> the file? (That can actually happen, although it's never happened to me.)
>> How do you debug any problems, given only "0" as a result?
>>
>> What happens if you read (let's say) a 20GB Blue-Ray disk image?
>
> I think you're making far too much of a throwaway function to grab a
> file off disk and into memory.
>
> But out of interest, how would /you/ write a function that takes a
> file-spec and turns it into an in-memory string? And what would its use
> look like?
I already told you. For a quick and dirty script where I didn't care much
about reliability, I would use:
the_text = open(filename).read()
and leave it at that.
There's a hierarchy of less- to more-reliable. Next would be:
with open(filename) as f:
the_text = f.read()
which guarantees to close the file promptly. Better still would be to avoid
dealing with the entire file in one (potentially enormous) chunk, and
process it line by line:
with open(filename) as f:
for line in f:
process line
If for some reason I *had* to process it as one big chunk of text, where I
knew that there was a chance that it could be bigger than what I could
comfortably hold in memory in one go, I would research mmap. But I don't
really know anything about how that works. I've been lucky enough to never
need to care.
Dealing with out-of-memory errors on modern OSes is one of the hardest
things to get right. In some ways, we're lucky, because the OS will try
really hard to give the illusion that you have an infinite amount of
memory. But the illusion is never perfect, and the abstraction of "virtual
memory plus real memory = infinite memory" can break down. I once foolishly
tried to create an *enormous* list, something like [0]*10**100, and my OS
very kindly started swapping applications in and out of memory trying to
free up 40 000 000 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion
billion billion petabytes of memory (estimated).
Not only did Python lock up, but so did the OS. I decided to leave it
overnight to see if it would recover, but 16 hours later it was still
locked up and frantically trying to swap memory. I'm not sure why the
OOM-Killer didn't trigger. I ended up having to do a hard power-down to
recover. So virtual memory is a mixed blessing.
>> Pythonic code probably uses a lot of iterables:
>>
>> for value in something:
>> ...
>
>> in preference to Pascal code written in Python:
>>
>> for index in range(len(something)):
>> value = something[index]
>
> (Suppose you need both the value and its index in the loop? Then the
> one-line for above won't work. For example, 'something' is [10,20,30]
> and you want to print:
>
> 0: 10
> 1: 20
> 2: 30 )
for index, n in enumerate([10, 20, 30]):
print(index, ":", n)
>> or worse:
>>
>> index = 0
>> while index < len(something):
>> value = something[index]
>> ...
>> index += 1
>
>> (I don't know where that while-loop idiom comes from. C? Assembly?
>> Penitent monks living in hair shirts in the desert and flogging
>> themselves with chains every single night to mortify the accursed flesh?
>> But I'm seeing it a lot in code written by beginners. I presume somebody,
>> or some book, is teaching it to them. "Learn Python The Hard Way"
>> perhaps?)
>
> Are you suggesting 'while' is not needed?
Of course not. Use while loops for when you need a while loop.
But *writing a for-loop using while* is an abuse of while.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 14:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lf5d1qmisio.fsf@ling.helsinki.fi> |
| In reply to | #105459 |
BartC writes:
> Not everything fits into a for-loop you know! Why, take my own
> readtoken() function:
>
> symbol = anything_other_than_skip_sym
>
> while symbol != skip_sym:
> symbol = readnextsymbol()
>
> Of course, a repeat-until or repeat-while would suit this better (but
> I don't know how it fits into Python syntax). So there's a case here
> for increasing the number of loop statements not reducing them.
Not sure why nobody seems to respond to this part. Perhaps I just missed
it? It's true that while has its uses, or at least I think I've used it
in Python once or twice. But there's more fun to be had by turning your
data into a stream-like object.
stream = iter(' /* this is C! */') # <-- produces a character at a time
Now you can ask for the next item that satisfies a condition using a
generator expression:
next(symbol for symbol in stream if not symbol.isspace())
---> '/'
next(symbol for symbol in stream if not symbol.isspace())
---> '*'
Or collect the remaining items:
list(symbol for symbol in stream if not symbol.isspace())
---> ['t', 'h', 'i', 's', 'i', 's', 'C', '!', '*', '/']
You could also say:
for symbol in stream:
if symbol.isspace(): continue
...
But this particular stream is empty by now. I work with long streams of
tokenized and annotated sentences (which for me are streams of tokens)
that sometimes come packed in streams of paragraphs packed in streams of
texts. I build whatever stream I happen to want by nesting generator
functions and generator expressions and some related machinery. (You
could build on a character stream or a byte stream that you obtain by
opening a file for reading; I tend to read line by line through
itertools.groupby, because that's what I do.)
These things compose well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 00:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8.1458651627.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105474 |
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> wrote: > Now you can ask for the next item that satisfies a condition using a > generator expression: > > next(symbol for symbol in stream if not symbol.isspace()) > ---> '/' > > next(symbol for symbol in stream if not symbol.isspace()) > ---> '*' Or use filter(), which is sometimes clearer: # You probably want a more sophisticated function here def nonspace(ch): return not ch.isspace() next(filter(nonspace, stream)) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 15:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lf58u1airhe.fsf@ling.helsinki.fi> |
| In reply to | #105477 |
Chris Angelico writes:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
>> Now you can ask for the next item that satisfies a condition using a
>> generator expression:
>>
>> next(symbol for symbol in stream if not symbol.isspace())
>> ---> '/'
>>
>> next(symbol for symbol in stream if not symbol.isspace())
>> ---> '*'
>
> Or use filter(), which is sometimes clearer:
>
> # You probably want a more sophisticated function here
> def nonspace(ch): return not ch.isspace()
>
> next(filter(nonspace, stream))
Sure.
# But there's more fun hiding in the standard library.
next(itertools.filterfalse(operator.methodcaller('isspace'), stream))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 00:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.10.1458653063.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105480 |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Jussi Piitulainen
<jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
>>> Now you can ask for the next item that satisfies a condition using a
>>> generator expression:
>>>
>>> next(symbol for symbol in stream if not symbol.isspace())
>>> ---> '/'
>>>
>>> next(symbol for symbol in stream if not symbol.isspace())
>>> ---> '*'
>>
>> Or use filter(), which is sometimes clearer:
>>
>> # You probably want a more sophisticated function here
>> def nonspace(ch): return not ch.isspace()
>>
>> next(filter(nonspace, stream))
>
> Sure.
>
> # But there's more fun hiding in the standard library.
> next(itertools.filterfalse(operator.methodcaller('isspace'), stream))
... at that point, the genexp is miles ahead in readability :)
Although I do sometimes yearn for a "filterout" function that does the
same thing as filter() but negates its predicate. Then you could use:
next(filterout(str.isspace, stream))
to say "give me the next from the stream, filtering out those which
are spaces". It's not hard to write, of course.
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 15:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lf51t72iqp6.fsf@ling.helsinki.fi> |
| In reply to | #105481 |
Chris Angelico writes:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
>> Chris Angelico writes:
>>
>>> Or use filter(), which is sometimes clearer:
>>>
>>> # You probably want a more sophisticated function here
>>> def nonspace(ch): return not ch.isspace()
>>>
>>> next(filter(nonspace, stream))
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> # But there's more fun hiding in the standard library.
>> next(itertools.filterfalse(operator.methodcaller('isspace'), stream))
>
> ... at that point, the genexp is miles ahead in readability :)
;)
> Although I do sometimes yearn for a "filterout" function that does the
> same thing as filter() but negates its predicate. Then you could use:
>
> next(filterout(str.isspace, stream))
>
> to say "give me the next from the stream, filtering out those which
> are spaces". It's not hard to write, of course.
from itertools import filterfalse as filterout
next(filterout(str.isspace, """
I didn't know str.isspace works like that!
"""))
---> 'I'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 00:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.13.1458653935.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105484 |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> wrote: >> Although I do sometimes yearn for a "filterout" function that does the >> same thing as filter() but negates its predicate. Then you could use: >> >> next(filterout(str.isspace, stream)) >> >> to say "give me the next from the stream, filtering out those which >> are spaces". It's not hard to write, of course. > > from itertools import filterfalse as filterout > > next(filterout(str.isspace, """ > > I didn't know str.isspace works like that! > > """)) > ---> 'I' str.isspace(s) <-> s.isspace(), as long as type(s) is str. Very handy for this sort of thing. And yeah, the import is an option, but if I'm trying to explain stuff to people, it's usually easier to grab a genexp (full flexibility, but the complexity) than to play around with importing. When the function you want exists and returns true for the things you want, filter() has a big win; for any other situation, it's not worth reaching to itertools for a specific solution when the generic one will cover this and every other case. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 15:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lf5wpouhbc7.fsf@ling.helsinki.fi> |
| In reply to | #105485 |
Chris Angelico writes: > And yeah, the import is an option, but if I'm trying to explain stuff > to people, it's usually easier to grab a genexp (full flexibility, but > the complexity) than to play around with importing. When the function > you want exists and returns true for the things you want, filter() has > a big win; for any other situation, it's not worth reaching to > itertools for a specific solution when the generic one will cover this > and every other case. True. Filtering is so simple. The big win for me has been itertools.groupby. The other stuff I mostly play with for amusement. But hey, nothing frivolous in amusement!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 22:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3LidnZ0Tl9REu2_LnZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #105459 |
I didn't see anyone responding to this, so I'll pop in here...
On 03/22/2016 04:05 AM, BartC wrote:
[...]
> (Suppose you need both the value and its index in the loop? Then the one-line for above won't
> work. For example, 'something' is [10,20,30] and you want to print:
>
> 0: 10
> 1: 20
> 2: 30 )
>
Your lack of knowledge of Python is showing again...
Python has "enumerate" just for this purpose. Your example would be written as:
for i, val in enumerate(something):
print('{}: {}'.format(i, val))
However, in this specific example, the i is not used as an actual index but rather a
line-number. So you can change "enumerate(something)" to "enumerate(something, 1)" to set the
starting number to 1 instead of the default 0, and the lines will be numbered 1, 2 and 3 rather
than 0, 1 and 2.
As always, the choice is yours. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 22:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.426.1458526919.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105322 |
On 3/20/2016 9:15 PM, BartC wrote:
> http://pastebin.com/dtM8WnFZ
> This is a test of a character-at-a-time task in Python;
I disagree. It tests of C code re-written in ludicrously crippled
Python. No use of the re module, designed for tasks like this, and no
use of dicts, which replace many uses of switch statements.
> but exactly such tasks are what I often use dynamic languages for.
For instance, there are about 15 clauses like
---
elif c=="?":
lxsymbol=question_sym
return
---
I believe it would be much faster to combine these in one clause. First
define simple_symbols = {'?': question_sym, ...}. Then
elif c in simple_symbols:
lxsymbol = simple_symbols[c]
return
In any case, the O(k), where k is the number of alternatives, linear
search should be replaced by an O(log k) binary search (nested if-else
statement) or O(1) hashed search (with a dictionary mapping chars to
functions.
> I started off trying to write it in a more efficient way that would suit
> Python better, but quickly tired of that. I should be able to express
> the code how I want.
Of course you can. But you cannot write in a crippled Python subset and
fairly claim that the result represents idiomatic Python code.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 12:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncopi1$vgc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105330 |
On 21/03/2016 02:21, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/20/2016 9:15 PM, BartC wrote:
>> http://pastebin.com/dtM8WnFZ
>> This is a test of a character-at-a-time task in Python;
>
> I disagree. It tests of C code re-written in ludicrously crippled
> Python. No use of the re module,
You can't use the re module for this kind of test. It would be like a
writing a C compiler in Python like this:
system("gcc "+filename)
(or whatever the equivalent is in Python) and claiming the compilation
speeds are due to Python's fast byte-code.
> designed for tasks like this,
(I've tested someone's parser written in Python using regular
expressions, I seem to remember it was still pretty slow.)
> > but exactly such tasks are what I often use dynamic languages for.
>
> For instance, there are about 15 clauses like
> ---
> elif c=="?":
> lxsymbol=question_sym
> return
> ---
>
> I believe it would be much faster to combine these in one clause. First
> define simple_symbols = {'?': question_sym, ...}. Then
> elif c in simple_symbols:
> lxsymbol = simple_symbols[c]
> return
I tried that (for 11 clauses), and it actually got a bit slower if the
one test was placed towards the end! But faster if placed nearer the
beginning.
I also tweaked the way each identifier name is built up (using a slice
after the limits of the name are established instead of building a
character at a time).
The "\r" check was got rid of (in text mode, it won't occur); the eof
check was last (as it will only occur once), and the chr(0) check was
removed as chr(0) isn't used (that would have zero cost in a jumptable
switch or using a function table, but it does cost here).
Overall, Python 3's throughput increased from 33Klps to 43Kpls (and
Python 2 from 43Klps to 53Kpls).
HOWEVER: PyPy doesn't seem to like those Dict lookups: it's throughput
reduced from 105Klps (after those other changes) to 29Klps when the Dict
lookup was used. Odd.
(I haven't tried this on Ubuntu as that seems to have snappier versions
of both Python 2 and Pypy, but that's a bit of a pain to test.)
> In any case, the O(k), where k is the number of alternatives, linear
> search should be replaced by an O(log k) binary search (nested if-else
> statement) or O(1) hashed search (with a dictionary mapping chars to
> functions.
>> I started off trying to write it in a more efficient way that would suit
>> Python better, but quickly tired of that. I should be able to express
>> the code how I want.
>
> Of course you can. But you cannot write in a crippled Python subset and
> fairly claim that the result represents idiomatic Python code.
For Python I would have used a table of 0..255 functions, indexed by the
ord() code of each character. So all 52 letter codes map to the same
name-handling function. (No Dict is needed at this point.)
But that's a hell of a lot of infra-structure to set up, only to find
out that Python's function call overheads mean it's not much faster (or
maybe it's slower) than using an if-elif chain.
(I've no idea if it might be much faster or not. And yet, having said
that, I can't resist trying it out! But it'll have to be a bit later.)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 23:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.438.1458565186.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105352 |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:34 PM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > For Python I would have used a table of 0..255 functions, indexed by the > ord() code of each character. So all 52 letter codes map to the same > name-handling function. (No Dict is needed at this point.) > Once again, you forget that there are not 256 characters - there are 1114112. (Give or take.) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 00:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56effbc1$0$1622$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105354 |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:59 pm, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:34 PM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> For Python I would have used a table of 0..255 functions, indexed by the >> ord() code of each character. So all 52 letter codes map to the same >> name-handling function. (No Dict is needed at this point.) >> > > Once again, you forget that there are not 256 characters - there are > 1114112. (Give or take.) Pardon me, do I understand you correctly? You're saying that the C parser is Unicode-aware and allows you to use Unicode in C source code? Because Bart's test is for a (simplified?) C tokeniser, and expecting his tokeniser to support character sets that C does not would be, well, Not Cricket, my good chap. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 10:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.441.1458569089.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105359 |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016, at 09:48, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Pardon me, do I understand you correctly? You're saying that the C parser > is > Unicode-aware and allows you to use Unicode in C source code? Er, "the" C parser? In the C standard, the source character set is implementation-defined, and is specifically called out that it "may contain multibyte characters, used to represent members of the extended character set". But that's really not the point here, the point is that expecting an implementation of a character-based switch statement in Python to be able to rely on there only being 256 characters is unreasonable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 02:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56f00eb9$0$1597$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105360 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 01:04 am, Random832 wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016, at 09:48, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> Pardon me, do I understand you correctly? You're saying that the C parser >> is >> Unicode-aware and allows you to use Unicode in C source code? > > Er, "the" C parser? > > In the C standard, the source character set is implementation-defined, > and is specifically called out that it "may contain multibyte > characters, used to represent members of the extended character set". > > But that's really not the point here, the point is that expecting an > implementation of a character-based switch statement in Python to be > able to rely on there only being 256 characters is unreasonable. Nobody has suggested that. Bart suggested that *his application* would use a 256 table. You trimmed the part of my post that quoted him: "For Python I would have used a table of 0..255 functions" Bart, like any of us, is perfectly entitled to only handle 8-bit ASCII (Latin-1 perhaps?) if he chooses, and he wasn't talking about any hypothetical future switch statement. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 08:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bae998f2-63e6-4a76-a5f6-4b1dc5addbef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105359 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 7:19:03 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:59 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:34 PM, BartC wrote:
> >> For Python I would have used a table of 0..255 functions, indexed by the
> >> ord() code of each character. So all 52 letter codes map to the same
> >> name-handling function. (No Dict is needed at this point.)
> >>
> >
> > Once again, you forget that there are not 256 characters - there are
> > 1114112. (Give or take.)
>
> Pardon me, do I understand you correctly? You're saying that the C parser is
> Unicode-aware and allows you to use Unicode in C source code? Because
> Bart's test is for a (simplified?) C tokeniser, and expecting his tokeniser
> to support character sets that C does not would be, well, Not Cricket, my
> good chap.
Sticking to C and integer switches, one would expect that
switch (n)
{
case 1000:...
case 1001:
case 1002:
:
:
case 2000:
default:
}
would compile into faster/tighter code than
switch (n)
{
case 1:...
case 100:
case 200:
case 1000:
case 10000:
default:
}
IOW if the compiler can detect an arithmetic progression or a reasonably dense
subset of one it can make a jump table. If not it starts deteriorating into
if-else chains
Same applies to char even if char is full-unicode: if the switching is over a
small dense/contiguous subset, a jump table works well (at assembly level)
and so a switch at C level.
[And dicts/arrays of functions are ok approximations to that]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 02:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.443.1458575169.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105359 |
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:59 pm, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:34 PM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> For Python I would have used a table of 0..255 functions, indexed by the >>> ord() code of each character. So all 52 letter codes map to the same >>> name-handling function. (No Dict is needed at this point.) >>> >> >> Once again, you forget that there are not 256 characters - there are >> 1114112. (Give or take.) > > Pardon me, do I understand you correctly? You're saying that the C parser is > Unicode-aware and allows you to use Unicode in C source code? Because > Bart's test is for a (simplified?) C tokeniser, and expecting his tokeniser > to support character sets that C does not would be, well, Not Cricket, my > good chap. We nutted part of this out earlier in the thread; Python 3.x code is, and any other modern language should be, defined to have Unicode source. (And yes, MRAB, I'm aware that only a tiny fraction of codepoints are defined; it's still a lot more than 256, and going to make for a far larger lookup table.) While you could plausibly define that your source code consists only of printable ASCII characters (eg 09,10,13,32-126), it is an extremely bad idea to declare that it has 256 possibilities - you're shackling your language to a parser definition that includes both more and less than people will expect. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 17:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncp9si$ii$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105354 |
On 21/03/2016 12:59, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:34 PM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> For Python I would have used a table of 0..255 functions, indexed by the >> ord() code of each character. So all 52 letter codes map to the same >> name-handling function. (No Dict is needed at this point.) >> > > Once again, you forget that there are not 256 characters - there are > 1114112. (Give or take.) The original code for this test expected the data to be a series of bytes, mostly ASCII. Any Unicode in the input would be expected to be in the form of UTF-8. Since this was designed to tokenise C, I don't think C supports Unicode except in comments within the code, and within string literals. For those purposes, it is not necessary to do anything with UTF-8 escape sequences except ignore them or process them unchanged. (I'm ignoring 'wide' string and char literals). But it doesn't make any difference: you process a byte at a time, and trap codes C0 to FF which is the start of an escape sequence. I understand that Python 3 doing text mode files can do this expansion automatically, and give you a string that might contain code points above 127. That's not a problem: you can still treat the first 128 code-points exactly as I have, and have special treatment for the rest. But you /will/ need to know if data is a raw UTF-8 stream, or has been already processed into Unicode. (I'm taking about 'top-level' character dispatch where you're looking for the start of a token.) Note that my test data was 5,964,784 bytes on disk, of which 14 had values above 127: probably 3 or 4 Unicode characters, and most likely in comments. Given that 99.9998% of input byte data is ASCII, and 99.9999% of characters (in this data), is it unreasonable to concentrate on that 0..127 range? -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web