> > I'm not very concerned about strings or lists with more than 2GB > > items, but I am concerned about other memory buffers. > > Those in the Numeric/numarray community, for one, would also be > concerned. Although there aren't many data arrays these days that are > larger than 2GB there are some beginning to appear. I have no doubt > that within a few years there will be many more. I'm not sure I > understand all the implications of the discussion here, but it sounds > like an important issue. Currently strings are frequently used as > a common "medium" to pass binary data from one module to another > (e.g., from Numeric to PIL); limiting strings to 2GB may prove > a problem in this area (though frankly, I suspect few will want > to use them as temporary buffers for objects that size until memories > have grown a bit more :-). Sorry, I should have been more exact. I meant 2 billion items, not 2 gigabytes. That should give you an extra factor 4-8 to play with. :-) We'll fix this in Python 3.0 for sure -- the question is, should we start fixing it now and binary compatibility be damned, or should we honor binary compatiblity more? Maybe someone in the Python-with-a-tie camp can comment? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4