Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-February/012472.html below:

[Python-Dev] Adding pymalloc to the core (Benchmarking "fun" (was Re: Python 2.1 slower than 2.0))

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Adding pymalloc to the core (Benchmarking "fun" (was Re: Python 2.1 slower than 2.0))
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Adding pymalloc to the core (Benchmarking "fun" (was Re: Python 2.1 slower than 2.0))
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

mal wrote:
> We'll only have to sort out whether to make it opt-in (the
> current state of the patch) or opt-out. The latter would
> certainly enable better testing of the code, but I understand
> that Jeremy doesn't want to destabilize the release just now.
> 
> Perhaps we'll need a third alpha release ?! (the weak reference
> implementation and the other goodies need much more testing
> IMHO than just one alpha cycle)

+1 on opt-out and an extra alpha to hammer on weak refs,
nested namespaces, and pymalloc.
+0 on pymalloc opt-in and no third alpha
-1 on function attri, oops, to late.

Cheers /F

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Adding pymalloc to the core (Benchmarking "fun" (was Re: Python 2.1 slower than 2.0))
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Adding pymalloc to the core (Benchmarking "fun" (was Re: Python 2.1 slower than 2.0))
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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