Chris Angelico writes:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Pete Forman wrote:
>> I was asserting that most useful operations on strings start from
>> index 0. The r* operations would not be slowed down that much as
>> UTF-8 has the useful property that attempting to interpret from a
>> byte that
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>> decoding JSON... the scanner, which steps through the string and
>> does the actual parsing. ...
>> The only way for it to be fast enough would be to have some sort of
>> retainable string iterator, which means exposin
Chris Angelico writes:
> decoding JSON... the scanner, which steps through the string and
> does the actual parsing. ...
> The only way for it to be fast enough would be to have some sort of
> retainable string iterator, which means exposing an opaque "position
> marker" that serves no purpose oth
On 2017-01-21 00:51, Pete Forman wrote:
MRAB writes:
As someone who has written an extension, I can tell you that I much
prefer dealing with a fixed number of bytes per codepoint than a
variable number of bytes per codepoint, especially as I'm also
supporting earlier versions of Python where t
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Pete Forman wrote:
> MRAB writes:
>
>> As someone who has written an extension, I can tell you that I much
>> prefer dealing with a fixed number of bytes per codepoint than a
>> variable number of bytes per codepoint, especially as I'm also
>> supporting earlier
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Pete Forman wrote:
> I was asserting that most useful operations on strings start from index
> 0. The r* operations would not be slowed down that much as UTF-8 has the
> useful property that attempting to interpret from a byte that is not at
> the start of a seque
MRAB writes:
> As someone who has written an extension, I can tell you that I much
> prefer dealing with a fixed number of bytes per codepoint than a
> variable number of bytes per codepoint, especially as I'm also
> supporting earlier versions of Python where that was the case.
At the risk of s
Chris Kaynor writes:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Pete Forman wrote:
>> Can anyone point me at a rationale for PEP 393 being incorporated in
>> Python 3.3 over using UTF-8 as an internal string representation?
>> I've found good articles by Nick Coghlan, Armin Ronacher and others
>> on the
On 2017-01-20 23:06, Chris Kaynor wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Pete Forman wrote:
Can anyone point me at a rationale for PEP 393 being incorporated in
Python 3.3 over using UTF-8 as an internal string representation? I've
found good articles by Nick Coghlan, Armin Ronacher and others
.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Thomas Nyberg wrote:
> On 01/20/2017 03:06 PM, Chris Kaynor wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> --
>> Chris Kaynor
>>
>
> I was able to delete my response which was a wholly contained subset of this
> one. :)
>
>
> But I have one extra question. Is string
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Thomas Nyberg wrote:
> But I have one extra question. Is string indexing guaranteed to be
> constant-time for python? I thought so, but I couldn't find it documented
> anywhere. (Not that I think it practically matters, since it couldn't really
> change if it were
On 01/20/2017 03:06 PM, Chris Kaynor wrote:
[...snip...]
--
Chris Kaynor
I was able to delete my response which was a wholly contained subset of
this one. :)
But I have one extra question. Is string indexing guaranteed to be
constant-time for python? I thought so, but I couldn't
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Pete Forman wrote:
> Can anyone point me at a rationale for PEP 393 being incorporated in
> Python 3.3 over using UTF-8 as an internal string representation? I've
> found good articles by Nick Coghlan, Armin Ronacher and others on the
> matter. What I have not foun
Can anyone point me at a rationale for PEP 393 being incorporated in
Python 3.3 over using UTF-8 as an internal string representation? I've
found good articles by Nick Coghlan, Armin Ronacher and others on the
matter. What I have not found is discussion of pros and cons of
alternatives to the old n
In <878tq6hi0s@equus.decebal.nl> Cecil Westerhof writes:
> > I think using your window manager's built-in facilities for starting
> > programs would be better. Why are you using Python instead?
> Because when you use the window managers builtin facilities then all
> programs will be started
Ho Yeung Lee wrote, on January 19, 2017 12:05 AM
>
> Must target be only one bit one such as 0001,0010,0100,1000
> In supervised neural learning f(w*p+b) with perceptron rule w
> = w + e for linear case?
>
> with neural network design
>
> does it means that can not use two or more one as targe
Xristos Xristoou writes:
> i am a python 2.7 and ubuntu 16.04 user.
While analysing a problem upgrading to Ubuntu 16.04 (unrelated to Python)
I found messages reporting about a problem with Python an Ubuntu 16.04[.0]
(leading to memory corruption - something you are seeing).
The proposed solutio
Cecil Westerhof writes:
> ...
>> If you do mean 'pathlib', it was introduced in Python 3.4.
>
> It is about python2.
I can remember to have seen announcements for enhanced "path" modules
in this list. Your previously posted traceback shows that the problem
comes from the package "pickleshare" whi
18 matches
Mail list logo
