Re: [Python-Dev] Providing support files to assist 3.x extension authors
Case Vanhorsen, 20.12.2009 01:38: When I ported gmpy (Python to GMP multiple precision library) to Python 3.x, I began to use PyLong_AsLongAndOverflow frequently. I found the code to slightly faster and cleaner than using PyLong_AsLong and checking for overflow. You might want to look at the code Cython generates for integer type conversions. We use specialised coercion code that gets generated on-the-fly to convert Python long/int from and to all sorts of C integer types with compile time (portability) and runtime size/value checks. Depending on your needs, this may or may not be faster than the above C-API function. Stefan ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Proposing PEP 345 : Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.2
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Tarek Ziade wrote: > > This new operator removes the ambiguity the original proposal had, > without making it more > complex for common use cases. So if you dislike it, you will need to > propose something > else that also fixes the ambiguity we had. Ok. > Environment markers >.. >Here are some example of fields using such markers: > >Requires-Dist: pywin32 (>1.0); sys.platform == 'win32' Requires-Dist: [Windows] pywin32 1.0+ That's simpler, shorter, and less ambiguous. Easier to parse for package managers. David ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Proposing PEP 345 : Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.2
David Lyon wrote: On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Tarek Ziade wrote: This new operator removes the ambiguity the original proposal had, without making it more complex for common use cases. So if you dislike it, you will need to propose something else that also fixes the ambiguity we had. Ok. Environment markers .. Here are some example of fields using such markers: Requires-Dist: pywin32 (>1.0); sys.platform == 'win32' Requires-Dist: [Windows] pywin32 1.0+ That's simpler, shorter, and less ambiguous. Easier to parse for package managers. 'win32' is more specific than 'Windows' and, to me, '1.0+' means '>=1.0', not '>1.0'. ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Proposing PEP 345 : Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.2
>> Requires-Dist: pywin32 (>1.0); sys.platform == 'win32' > > Requires-Dist: [Windows] pywin32 1.0+ > > That's simpler, shorter, and less ambiguous. Easier to > parse for package managers. Don't you want the PEP to complete? Why this bike-shedding? I can agree it's shorter. I can't agree that it's simpler, or less ambiguous. Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Proposing PEP 345 : Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.2
On Jan 3, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>> Requires-Dist: pywin32 (>1.0); sys.platform == 'win32' >> >> Requires-Dist: [Windows] pywin32 1.0+ >> >> That's simpler, shorter, and less ambiguous. Easier to >> parse for package managers. > > Don't you want the PEP to complete? Why this bike-shedding? Really Enough, already! S ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Proposing PEP 345 : Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.2
Hi Martin, Happy New Year, >>> Requires-Dist: pywin32 (>1.0); sys.platform == 'win32' >> >> Requires-Dist: [Windows] pywin32 1.0+ >> >> That's simpler, shorter, and less ambiguous. Easier to >> parse for package managers. > > Don't you want the PEP to complete? Why this bike-shedding? Well, I'm just helping out by pointing out some simpler ways as Tarek asked me. I was only answering his question. I was out celebrating so it took longer to reply than normal. Bike-Shedding ? Me ? which bikeshed? wanting simple? Anyway, I'm just reading the PEPs and commenting. If there are some alterations that can be done, lets discuss them. > I can agree it's shorter. > .. Cool. What I'd really like is a 'Code-Repository:' keyword so that we can install programs/libraries directly into a system. I feel that this would really simplify the packaging landscape, making it much easier for the scientific community and others to do python software installs. This would allow us to perphaps have something even *more modern* than CPAN. So yes, getting PEP-345 right is important to me. Have a nice day. David ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
