On 2018-07-23 01:54, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: > All the material to discuss that we have in this thread is a single test > result that's impossible to reproduce and impossible to run in Py3. I just posted that it can be reproduced on Python 3.7: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-July/154740.html I admit that it's not entirely trivial to do that. The Python 3 port of SageMath is still work in progress and the Python 3.7 port even more so. So it requires a few patches. If somebody wants to reproduce those results right now, I could give more details. But really, I would recommend to wait a month or so and then hopefully those patches will be merged. > It's however impossible to say from this > how frequent these scenarios are in practice And how would you suggest that we measure that? All benchmarks are artificial in some way: for every benchmark, one can find reasons why it's not relevant. > and how consistent the improvement is among them. I only posted the most serious regression. As another data point, the total time to run the full SageMath testsuite increased by about 1.8% when compiling the Cython code with binding=True. So one could assume that there is an average improvement of 1.8% with a much larger improvement in a few specific cases. > Likewise, it's impossible to say anything > about the complexity the changes will reduce/introduce without a > proof-of-concept implementation. Why do you think that there is no implementation? As mentioned in PEP 580, there is an implementation at https://github.com/jdemeyer/cpython/tree/pep580 Jeroen.
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