Mailman 3 মার্চ 2016 - Python-Dev

PEP 448 review
by Guido van Rossum 29 মার্চ, 2023

29 মার্চ, 2023

I'm back, I've re-read the PEP, and I've re-read the long thread with "(no subject)". I think Georg Brandl nailed it: """ *I like the "sequence and dict flattening" part of the PEP, mostly because itis consistent and should be easy to understand, but the comprehension syntaxenhancements seem to be bad for readability and "comprehending" what the codedoes.The call syntax part is a mixed bag on the one hand it is nice to be consistent with the extended possibilities in literals (flattening), but on the other hand there would be small but annoying inconsistencies anyways (e.g. the duplicate kwarg case above).* """ Greg Ewing followed up explaining that the inconsistency between dict flattening and call syntax is inherent in the pre-existing different rules for dicts vs. keyword args: {'a':1, 'a':2} results in {'a':2}, while f(a=1, a=2) is an error. (This form is a SyntaxError; the dynamic case f(a=1, **{'a': 1}) is a TypeError.) For me, allowing f(*a, *b) and f(**d, **e) and all the other combinations for function calls proposed by the PEP is an easy +1 -- it's a straightforward extension of the existing pattern, and anybody who knows what f(x, *a) does will understand f(x, *a, y, *b). Guessing what f(**d, **e) means shouldn't be hard either. Understanding the edge case for duplicate keys with f(**d, **e) is a little harder, but the error messages are pretty clear, and it is not a new edge case. The sequence and dict flattening syntax proposals are also clean and logical -- we already have *-unpacking on the receiving side, so allowing *x in tuple expressions reads pretty naturally (and the similarity with *a in argument lists certainly helps). From here, having [a, *x, b, *y] is also natural, and then the extension to other displays is natural: {a, *x, b, *y} and {a:1, **d, b:2, **e}. This, too, gets a +1 from me. So that leaves comprehensions. IIRC, during the development of the patch we realized that f(*x for x in xs) is sufficiently ambiguous that we decided to disallow it -- note that f(x for x in xs) is already somewhat of a special case because an argument can only be a "bare" generator expression if it is the only argument. The same reasoning doesn't apply (in that form) to list, set and dict comprehensions -- while f(x for x in xs) is identical in meaning to f((x for x in xs)), [x for x in xs] is NOT the same as [(x for x in xs)] (that's a list of one element, and the element is a generator expression). The basic premise of this part of the proposal is that if you have a few iterables, the new proposal (without comprehensions) lets you create a list or generator expression that iterates over all of them, essentially flattening them: >>> xs = [1, 2, 3] >>> ys = ['abc', 'def'] >>> zs = [99] >>> [*xs, *ys, *zs] [1, 2, 3, 'abc', 'def', 99] >>> But now suppose you have a list of iterables: >>> xss = [[1, 2, 3], ['abc', 'def'], [99]] >>> [*xss[0], *xss[1], *xss[2]] [1, 2, 3, 'abc', 'def', 99] >>> Wouldn't it be nice if you could write the latter using a comprehension? >>> xss = [[1, 2, 3], ['abc', 'def'], [99]] >>> [*xs for xs in xss] [1, 2, 3, 'abc', 'def', 99] >>> This is somewhat seductive, and the following is even nicer: the *xs position may be an expression, e.g.: >>> xss = [[1, 2, 3], ['abc', 'def'], [99]] >>> [*xs[:2] for xs in xss] [1, 2, 'abc', 'def', 99] >>> On the other hand, I had to explore the possibilities here by experimenting in the interpreter, and I discovered some odd edge cases (e.g. you can parenthesize the starred expression, but that seems a syntactic accident). All in all I am personally +0 on the comprehension part of the PEP, and I like that it provides a way to "flatten" a sequence of sequences, but I think very few people in the thread have supported this part. Therefore I would like to ask Neil to update the PEP and the patch to take out the comprehension part, so that the two "easy wins" can make it into Python 3.5 (basically, I am accepting two-thirds of the PEP :-). There is some time yet until alpha 2. I would also like code reviewers (Benjamin?) to start reviewing the patch <http://bugs.python.org/issue2292>, taking into account that the comprehension part needs to be removed. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

7 17

PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines
by barry＠zope.com 18 মে, 2021

18 মে, 2021

It has been a while since I posted a copy of PEP 1 to the mailing lists and newsgroups. I've recently done some updating of a few sections, so in the interest of gaining wider community participation in the Python development process, I'm posting the latest revision of PEP 1 here. A version of the PEP is always available on-line at http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html Enjoy, -Barry -------------------- snip snip -------------------- PEP: 1 Title: PEP Purpose and Guidelines Version: $Revision: 1.36 $ Last-Modified: $Date: 2002/07/29 18:34:59 $ Author: Barry A. Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton Status: Active Type: Informational Created: 13-Jun-2000 Post-History: 21-Mar-2001, 29-Jul-2002 What is a PEP? PEP stands for Python Enhancement Proposal. A PEP is a design document providing information to the Python community, or describing a new feature for Python. The PEP should provide a concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for the feature. We intend PEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for documenting the design decisions that have gone into Python. The PEP author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions. Because the PEPs are maintained as plain text files under CVS control, their revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal[1]. Kinds of PEPs There are two kinds of PEPs. A standards track PEP describes a new feature or implementation for Python. An informational PEP describes a Python design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Python community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational PEPs do not necessarily represent a Python community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors are free to ignore informational PEPs or follow their advice. PEP Work Flow The PEP editor, Barry Warsaw <peps(a)python.org>, assigns numbers for each PEP and changes its status. The PEP process begins with a new idea for Python. It is highly recommended that a single PEP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focussed the PEP, the more successfully it tends to be. The PEP editor reserves the right to reject PEP proposals if they appear too unfocussed or too broad. If in doubt, split your PEP into several well-focussed ones. Each PEP must have a champion -- someone who writes the PEP using the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus around the idea. The PEP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first attempt to ascertain whether the idea is PEP-able. Small enhancements or patches often don't need a PEP and can be injected into the Python development work flow with a patch submission to the SourceForge patch manager[2] or feature request tracker[3]. The PEP champion then emails the PEP editor <peps(a)python.org> with a proposed title and a rough, but fleshed out, draft of the PEP. This draft must be written in PEP style as described below. If the PEP editor approves, he will assign the PEP a number, label it as standards track or informational, give it status 'draft', and create and check-in the initial draft of the PEP. The PEP editor will not unreasonably deny a PEP. Reasons for denying PEP status include duplication of effort, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards compatibility, or not in keeping with the Python philosophy. The BDFL (Benevolent Dictator for Life, Guido van Rossum) can be consulted during the approval phase, and is the final arbitrator of the draft's PEP-ability. If a pre-PEP is rejected, the author may elect to take the pre-PEP to the comp.lang.python newsgroup (a.k.a. python-list(a)python.org mailing list) to help flesh it out, gain feedback and consensus from the community at large, and improve the PEP for re-submission. The author of the PEP is then responsible for posting the PEP to the community forums, and marshaling community support for it. As updates are necessary, the PEP author can check in new versions if they have CVS commit permissions, or can email new PEP versions to the PEP editor for committing. Standards track PEPs consists of two parts, a design document and a reference implementation. The PEP should be reviewed and accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a reference implementation will aid people in studying the PEP. Standards Track PEPs must include an implementation - in the form of code, patch, or URL to same - before it can be considered Final. PEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a PEP before submitting it for review. A PEP that has not been discussed on python-list(a)python.org and/or python-dev(a)python.org will not be accepted. However, wherever possible, long open-ended discussions on public mailing lists should be avoided. Strategies to keep the discussions efficient include, setting up a separate SIG mailing list for the topic, having the PEP author accept private comments in the early design phases, etc. PEP authors should use their discretion here. Once the authors have completed a PEP, they must inform the PEP editor that it is ready for review. PEPs are reviewed by the BDFL and his chosen consultants, who may accept or reject a PEP or send it back to the author(s) for revision. Once a PEP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be completed. When the reference implementation is complete and accepted by the BDFL, the status will be changed to `Final.' A PEP can also be assigned status `Deferred.' The PEP author or editor can assign the PEP this status when no progress is being made on the PEP. Once a PEP is deferred, the PEP editor can re-assign it to draft status. A PEP can also be `Rejected'. Perhaps after all is said and done it was not a good idea. It is still important to have a record of this fact. PEPs can also be replaced by a different PEP, rendering the original obsolete. This is intended for Informational PEPs, where version 2 of an API can replace version 1. PEP work flow is as follows: Draft -> Accepted -> Final -> Replaced ^ +----> Rejected v Deferred Some informational PEPs may also have a status of `Active' if they are never meant to be completed. E.g. PEP 1. What belongs in a successful PEP? Each PEP should have the following parts: 1. Preamble -- RFC822 style headers containing meta-data about the PEP, including the PEP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), the names, and optionally the contact info for each author, etc. 2. Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed. 3. Copyright/public domain -- Each PEP must either be explicitly labelled as placed in the public domain (see this PEP as an example) or licensed under the Open Publication License[4]. 4. Specification -- The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new language feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Python platforms (CPython, JPython, Python .NET). 5. Motivation -- The motivation is critical for PEPs that want to change the Python language. It should clearly explain why the existing language specification is inadequate to address the problem that the PEP solves. PEP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright. 6. Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion. 7. Backwards Compatibility -- All PEPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The PEP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. PEP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright. 8. Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must be completed before any PEP is given status 'Final,' but it need not be completed before the PEP is accepted. It is better to finish the specification and rationale first and reach consensus on it before writing code. The final implementation must include test code and documentation appropriate for either the Python language reference or the standard library reference. PEP Template PEPs are written in plain ASCII text, and should adhere to a rigid style. There is a Python script that parses this style and converts the plain text PEP to HTML for viewing on the web[5]. PEP 9 contains a boilerplate[7] template you can use to get started writing your PEP. Each PEP must begin with an RFC822 style header preamble. The headers must appear in the following order. Headers marked with `*' are optional and are described below. All other headers are required. PEP: <pep number> Title: <pep title> Version: <cvs version string> Last-Modified: <cvs date string> Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email addrs> * Discussions-To: <email address> Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Final | Replaced> Type: <Informational | Standards Track> * Requires: <pep numbers> Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format> * Python-Version: <version number> Post-History: <dates of postings to python-list and python-dev> * Replaces: <pep number> * Replaced-By: <pep number> The Author: header lists the names and optionally, the email addresses of all the authors/owners of the PEP. The format of the author entry should be address(a)dom.ain (Random J. User) if the email address is included, and just Random J. User if the address is not given. If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line following RFC 822 continuation line conventions. Note that personal email addresses in PEPs will be obscured as a defense against spam harvesters. Standards track PEPs must have a Python-Version: header which indicates the version of Python that the feature will be released with. Informational PEPs do not need a Python-Version: header. While a PEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial Draft phase), a Discussions-To: header will indicate the mailing list or URL where the PEP is being discussed. No Discussions-To: header is necessary if the PEP is being discussed privately with the author, or on the python-list or python-dev email mailing lists. Note that email addresses in the Discussions-To: header will not be obscured. Created: records the date that the PEP was assigned a number, while Post-History: is used to record the dates of when new versions of the PEP are posted to python-list and/or python-dev. Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy format, e.g. 14-Aug-2001. PEPs may have a Requires: header, indicating the PEP numbers that this PEP depends on. PEPs may also have a Replaced-By: header indicating that a PEP has been rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the number of the PEP that replaces the current document. The newer PEP must have a Replaces: header containing the number of the PEP that it rendered obsolete. PEP Formatting Requirements PEP headings must begin in column zero and the initial letter of each word must be capitalized as in book titles. Acronyms should be in all capitals. The body of each section must be indented 4 spaces. Code samples inside body sections should be indented a further 4 spaces, and other indentation can be used as required to make the text readable. You must use two blank lines between the last line of a section's body and the next section heading. You must adhere to the Emacs convention of adding two spaces at the end of every sentence. You should fill your paragraphs to column 70, but under no circumstances should your lines extend past column 79. If your code samples spill over column 79, you should rewrite them. Tab characters must never appear in the document at all. A PEP should include the standard Emacs stanza included by example at the bottom of this PEP. A PEP must contain a Copyright section, and it is strongly recommended to put the PEP in the public domain. When referencing an external web page in the body of a PEP, you should include the title of the page in the text, with a footnote reference to the URL. Do not include the URL in the body text of the PEP. E.g. Refer to the Python Language web site [1] for more details. ... [1] http://www.python.org When referring to another PEP, include the PEP number in the body text, such as "PEP 1". The title may optionally appear. Add a footnote reference that includes the PEP's title and author. It may optionally include the explicit URL on a separate line, but only in the References section. Note that the pep2html.py script will calculate URLs automatically, e.g.: ... Refer to PEP 1 [7] for more information about PEP style ... References [7] PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines, Warsaw, Hylton http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html If you decide to provide an explicit URL for a PEP, please use this as the URL template: http://www.python.org/peps/pep-xxxx.html PEP numbers in URLs must be padded with zeros from the left, so as to be exactly 4 characters wide, however PEP numbers in text are never padded. Reporting PEP Bugs, or Submitting PEP Updates How you report a bug, or submit a PEP update depends on several factors, such as the maturity of the PEP, the preferences of the PEP author, and the nature of your comments. For the early draft stages of the PEP, it's probably best to send your comments and changes directly to the PEP author. For more mature, or finished PEPs you may want to submit corrections to the SourceForge bug manager[6] or better yet, the SourceForge patch manager[2] so that your changes don't get lost. If the PEP author is a SF developer, assign the bug/patch to him, otherwise assign it to the PEP editor. When in doubt about where to send your changes, please check first with the PEP author and/or PEP editor. PEP authors who are also SF committers, can update the PEPs themselves by using "cvs commit" to commit their changes. Remember to also push the formatted PEP text out to the web by doing the following: % python pep2html.py -i NUM where NUM is the number of the PEP you want to push out. See % python pep2html.py --help for details. Transferring PEP Ownership It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of PEPs to a new champion. In general, we'd like to retain the original author as a co-author of the transferred PEP, but that's really up to the original author. A good reason to transfer ownership is because the original author no longer has the time or interest in updating it or following through with the PEP process, or has fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not responding to email). A bad reason to transfer ownership is because you don't agree with the direction of the PEP. We try to build consensus around a PEP, but if that's not possible, you can always submit a competing PEP. If you are interested assuming ownership of a PEP, send a message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author and the PEP editor <peps(a)python.org>. If the original author doesn't respond to email in a timely manner, the PEP editor will make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can be reversed. :). References and Footnotes [1] This historical record is available by the normal CVS commands for retrieving older revisions. For those without direct access to the CVS tree, you can browse the current and past PEP revisions via the SourceForge web site at http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/python/nondist/peps/?cvsroot=… [2] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470 [3] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=355470&group_id=5470&func=browse [4] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/ [5] The script referred to here is pep2html.py, which lives in the same directory in the CVS tree as the PEPs themselves. Try "pep2html.py --help" for details. The URL for viewing PEPs on the web is http://www.python.org/peps/ [6] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470 [7] PEP 9, Sample PEP Template http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0009.html Copyright This document has been placed in the public domain. Local Variables: mode: indented-text indent-tabs-mode: nil sentence-end-double-space: t fill-column: 70 End:

8 14

congrats on 3.5! Alas, windows 7 users are having problems installing it
by Laura Creighton 15 সেপ্টেম্বর, 2019

15 সেপ্টেম্বর, 2019

webmaster has already heard from 4 people who cannot install it. I sent them to the bug tracker or to python-list but they seem not to have gone either place. Is there some guide I should be sending them to, 'how to debug installation problems'? Laura

5 6

Speeding up CPython 5-10%
by Yury Selivanov 17 মে, 2016

17 মে, 2016

Hi, tl;dr The summary is that I have a patch that improves CPython performance up to 5-10% on macro benchmarks. Benchmarks results on Macbook Pro/Mac OS X, desktop CPU/Linux, server CPU/Linux are available at [1]. There are no slowdowns that I could reproduce consistently. There are twodifferent optimizations that yield this speedup: LOAD_METHOD/CALL_METHOD opcodes and per-opcode cache in ceval loop. LOAD_METHOD & CALL_METHOD ------------------------- We had a lot of conversations with Victor about his PEP 509, and he sent me a link to his amazing compilation of notes about CPython performance [2]. One optimization that he pointed out to me was LOAD/CALL_METHOD opcodes, an idea first originated in PyPy. There is a patch that implements this optimization, it's tracked here: [3]. There are some low level details that I explained in the issue, but I'll go over the high level design in this email as well. Every time you access a method attribute on an object, a BoundMethod object is created. It is a fairly expensive operation, despite a freelist of BoundMethods (so that memory allocation is generally avoided). The idea is to detect what looks like a method call in the compiler, and emit a pair of specialized bytecodes for that. So instead of LOAD_GLOBAL/LOAD_ATTR/CALL_FUNCTION we will have LOAD_GLOBAL/LOAD_METHOD/CALL_METHOD. LOAD_METHOD looks at the object on top of the stack, and checks if the name resolves to a method or to a regular attribute. If it's a method, then we push the unbound method object and the object to the stack. If it's an attribute, we push the resolved attribute and NULL. When CALL_METHOD looks at the stack it knows how to call the unbound method properly (pushing the object as a first arg), or how to call a regular callable. This idea does make CPython faster around 2-4%. And it surely doesn't make it slower. I think it's a safe bet to at least implement this optimization in CPython 3.6. So far, the patch only optimizes positional-only method calls. It's possible to optimize all kind of calls, but this will necessitate 3 more opcodes (explained in the issue). We'll need to do some careful benchmarking to see if it's really needed. Per-opcode cache in ceval ------------------------- While reading PEP 509, I was thinking about how we can use dict->ma_version in ceval to speed up globals lookups. One of the key assumptions (and this is what makes JITs possible) is that real-life programs don't modify globals and rebind builtins (often), and that most code paths operate on objects of the same type. In CPython, all pure Python functions have code objects. When you call a function, ceval executes its code object in a frame. Frames contain contextual information, including pointers to the globals and builtins dict. The key observation here is that almost all code objects always have same pointers to the globals (the module they were defined in) and to the builtins. And it's not a good programming practice to mutate globals or rebind builtins. Let's look at this function: def spam(): print(ham) Here are its opcodes: 2 0 LOAD_GLOBAL 0 (print) 3 LOAD_GLOBAL 1 (ham) 6 CALL_FUNCTION 1 (1 positional, 0 keyword pair) 9 POP_TOP 10 LOAD_CONST 0 (None) 13 RETURN_VALUE The opcodes we want to optimize are LAOD_GLOBAL, 0 and 3. Let's look at the first one, that loads the 'print' function from builtins. The opcode knows the following bits of information: - its offset (0), - its argument (0 -> 'print'), - its type (LOAD_GLOBAL). And these bits of information will *never* change. So if this opcode could resolve the 'print' name (from globals or builtins, likely the latter) and save the pointer to it somewhere, along with globals->ma_version and builtins->ma_version, it could, on its second call, just load this cached info back, check that the globals and builtins dict haven't changed and push the cached ref to the stack. That would save it from doing two dict lookups. We can also optimize LOAD_METHOD. There are high chances, that 'obj' in 'obj.method()' will be of the same type every time we execute the code object. So if we'd have an opcodes cache, LOAD_METHOD could then cache a pointer to the resolved unbound method, a pointer to obj.__class__, and tp_version_tag of obj.__class__. Then it would only need to check if the cached object type is the same (and that it wasn't modified) and that obj.__dict__ doesn't override 'method'. Long story short, this caching really speeds up method calls on types implemented in C. list.append becomes very fast, because list doesn't have a __dict__, so the check is very cheap (with cache). A straightforward way to implement such a cache is simple, but consumes a lot of memory, that would be just wasted, since we only need such a cache for LOAD_GLOBAL and LOAD_METHOD opcodes. So we have to be creative about the cache design. Here's what I came up with: 1. We add a few fields to the code object. 2. ceval will count how many times each code object is executed. 3. When the code object is executed over ~900 times, we mark it as "hot". We also create an 'unsigned char' array "MAPPING", with length set to match the length of the code object. So we have a 1-to-1 mapping between opcodes and MAPPING array. 4. Next ~100 calls, while the code object is "hot", LOAD_GLOBAL and LOAD_METHOD do "MAPPING[opcode_offset()]++". 5. After 1024 calls to the code object, ceval loop will iterate through the MAPPING, counting all opcodes that were executed more than 50 times. 6. We then create an array of cache structs "CACHE" (here's a link to the updated code.h file: [6]). We update MAPPING to be a mapping between opcode position and position in the CACHE. The code object is now "optimized". 7. When the code object is "optimized", LOAD_METHOD and LOAD_GLOBAL use the CACHE array for fast path. 8. When there is a cache miss, i.e. the builtins/global/obj.__dict__ were mutated, the opcode marks its entry in 'CACHE' as deoptimized, and it will never try to use the cache again. Here's a link to the issue tracker with the first version of the patch: [5]. I'm working on the patch in a github repo here: [4]. Summary ------- There are many things about this algorithm that we can improve/tweak. Perhaps we should profile code objects longer, or account for time they were executed. Maybe we shouldn't deoptimize opcodes on their first cache miss. Maybe we can come up with better data structures. We also need to profile the memory and see how much more this cache will require. One thing I'm certain about, is that we can get a 5-10% speedup of CPython with relatively low memory impact. And I think it's worth exploring that! If you're interested in these kind of optimizations, please help with code reviews, ideas, profiling and benchmarks. The latter is especially important, I'd never imagine how hard it is to come up with a good macro benchmark. I also want to thank my company MagicStack (magic.io) for sponsoring this work. Thanks, Yury [1] https://gist.github.com/1st1/aed69d63a2ff4de4c7be [2] http://faster-cpython.readthedocs.org/index.html [3] http://bugs.python.org/issue26110 [4] https://github.com/1st1/cpython/tree/opcache2 [5] http://bugs.python.org/issue26219 [6] https://github.com/python/cpython/compare/master...1st1:opcache2?expand=1#d…

12 26

Wordcode v2
by Demur Rumed 15 মে, 2016

15 মে, 2016

Saw recent discussion: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-February/143013.html I remember trying WPython; it was fast. Unfortunately it feels it came at the wrong time when development was invested in getting py3k out the door. It also had a lot of other ideas like *_INT instructions which allowed having oparg to be a constant int rather than needing to LOAD_CONST one. Anyways I'll stop reminiscing abarnert has started an experiment with wordcode: https://github.com/abarnert/cpython/blob/c095a32f2a68ac708466b9c64906cc4d0f… I've personally benchmarked this fork with positive results. This experiment seeks to be conservative-- it doesn't seek to introduce new opcodes or combine BINARY_OP's all into a single op where the currently unused-in-wordcode arg then states the kind of binary op (à la COMPARE_OP). I've submitted a pull request which is working on fixing tests & updating peephole.c Bringing this up on the list to figure out if there's interest in a basic wordcode change. It feels like there's no downsides: faster code, smaller bytecode, simpler interpretation of bytecode (The Nth instruction starts at the 2Nth byte if you count EXTENDED_ARG as an instruction). The only downside is the transitional cost What'd be necessary for this to be pulled upstream?

7 8

PEP 515: Underscores in Numeric Literals (revision 3)
by Georg Brandl 12 মে, 2016

12 মে, 2016

Hi all, after talking to Guido and Serhiy we present the next revision of this PEP. It is a compromise that we are all happy with, and a relatively restricted rule that makes additions to PEP 8 basically unnecessary. I think the discussion has shown that supporting underscores in the from-string constructors is valuable, therefore this is now added to the specification section. The remaining open question is about the reverse direction: do we want a string formatting modifier that adds underscores as thousands separators? cheers, Georg ----------------------------------------------------------------- PEP: 515 Title: Underscores in Numeric Literals Version: $Revision$ Last-Modified: $Date$ Author: Georg Brandl, Serhiy Storchaka Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 10-Feb-2016 Python-Version: 3.6 Post-History: 10-Feb-2016, 11-Feb-2016 Abstract and Rationale ====================== This PEP proposes to extend Python's syntax and number-from-string constructors so that underscores can be used as visual separators for digit grouping purposes in integral, floating-point and complex number literals. This is a common feature of other modern languages, and can aid readability of long literals, or literals whose value should clearly separate into parts, such as bytes or words in hexadecimal notation. Examples:: # grouping decimal numbers by thousands amount = 10_000_000.0 # grouping hexadecimal addresses by words addr = 0xDEAD_BEEF # grouping bits into nibbles in a binary literal flags = 0b_0011_1111_0100_1110 # same, for string conversions flags = int('0b_1111_0000', 2) Specification ============= The current proposal is to allow one underscore between digits, and after base specifiers in numeric literals. The underscores have no semantic meaning, and literals are parsed as if the underscores were absent. Literal Grammar --------------- The production list for integer literals would therefore look like this:: integer: decinteger | bininteger | octinteger | hexinteger decinteger: nonzerodigit (["_"] digit)* | "0" (["_"] "0")* bininteger: "0" ("b" | "B") (["_"] bindigit)+ octinteger: "0" ("o" | "O") (["_"] octdigit)+ hexinteger: "0" ("x" | "X") (["_"] hexdigit)+ nonzerodigit: "1"..."9" digit: "0"..."9" bindigit: "0" | "1" octdigit: "0"..."7" hexdigit: digit | "a"..."f" | "A"..."F" For floating-point and complex literals:: floatnumber: pointfloat | exponentfloat pointfloat: [digitpart] fraction | digitpart "." exponentfloat: (digitpart | pointfloat) exponent digitpart: digit (["_"] digit)* fraction: "." digitpart exponent: ("e" | "E") ["+" | "-"] digitpart imagnumber: (floatnumber | digitpart) ("j" | "J") Constructors ------------ Following the same rules for placement, underscores will be allowed in the following constructors: - ``int()`` (with any base) - ``float()`` - ``complex()`` - ``Decimal()`` Prior Art ========= Those languages that do allow underscore grouping implement a large variety of rules for allowed placement of underscores. In cases where the language spec contradicts the actual behavior, the actual behavior is listed. ("single" or "multiple" refer to allowing runs of consecutive underscores.) * Ada: single, only between digits [8]_ * C# (open proposal for 7.0): multiple, only between digits [6]_ * C++14: single, between digits (different separator chosen) [1]_ * D: multiple, anywhere, including trailing [2]_ * Java: multiple, only between digits [7]_ * Julia: single, only between digits (but not in float exponent parts) [9]_ * Perl 5: multiple, basically anywhere, although docs say it's restricted to one underscore between digits [3]_ * Ruby: single, only between digits (although docs say "anywhere") [10]_ * Rust: multiple, anywhere, except for between exponent "e" and digits [4]_ * Swift: multiple, between digits and trailing (although textual description says only "between digits") [5]_ Alternative Syntax ================== Underscore Placement Rules -------------------------- Instead of the relatively strict rule specified above, the use of underscores could be limited. As we seen from other languages, common rules include: * Only one consecutive underscore allowed, and only between digits. * Multiple consecutive underscores allowed, but only between digits. * Multiple consecutive underscores allowed, in most positions except for the start of the literal, or special positions like after a decimal point. The syntax in this PEP has ultimately been selected because it covers the common use cases, and does not allow for syntax that would have to be discouraged in style guides anyway. A less common rule would be to allow underscores only every N digits (where N could be 3 for decimal literals, or 4 for hexadecimal ones). This is unnecessarily restrictive, especially considering the separator placement is different in different cultures. Different Separators -------------------- A proposed alternate syntax was to use whitespace for grouping. Although strings are a precedent for combining adjoining literals, the behavior can lead to unexpected effects which are not possible with underscores. Also, no other language is known to use this rule, except for languages that generally disregard any whitespace. C++14 introduces apostrophes for grouping (because underscores introduce ambiguity with user-defined literals), which is not considered because of the use in Python's string literals. [1]_ Open Proposals ============== It has been proposed [11]_ to extend the number-to-string formatting language to allow ``_`` as a thousans separator, where currently only ``,`` is supported. This could be used to easily generate code with more readable literals. Implementation ============== A preliminary patch that implements the specification given above has been posted to the issue tracker. [12]_ References ========== .. [1] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3499.html .. [2] http://dlang.org/spec/lex.html#integerliteral .. [3] http://perldoc.perl.org/perldata.html#Scalar-value-constructors .. [4] http://doc.rust-lang.org/reference.html#number-literals .. [5] https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swif… .. [6] https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/216 .. [7] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/language/underscores… .. [8] http://archive.adaic.com/standards/83lrm/html/lrm-02-04.html#2.4 .. [9] http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.4/manual/integers-and-floating-point… .. [10] http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.3.0/doc/syntax/literals_rdoc.html#label-Numbers .. [11] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-February/143283.html .. [12] http://bugs.python.org/issue26331 Copyright ========= This document has been placed in the public domain.

9 21

Modify PyMem_Malloc to use pymalloc for performance
by Victor Stinner 22 এপ্রিল, 2016

22 এপ্রিল, 2016

Hi, There is an old discussion about the performance of PyMem_Malloc() memory allocator. CPython is stressing a lot memory allocators. Last time I made statistics, it was for the PEP 454: "For example, the Python test suites calls malloc() , realloc() or free() 270,000 times per second in average." https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0454/#log-calls-to-the-memory-allocator I proposed a simple change: modify PyMem_Malloc() to use the pymalloc allocator which is faster for allocation smaller than 512 bytes, or fallback to malloc() (which is the current internal allocator of PyMem_Malloc()). This tiny change makes Python up to 6% faster on some specific (macro) benchmarks, and it doesn't seem to make Python slower on any benchmark: http://bugs.python.org/issue26249#msg259445 Do you see any drawback of using pymalloc for PyMem_Malloc()? Does anyone recall the rationale to have two families to memory allocators? FYI Python has 3 families since 3.4: PyMem, PyObject but also PyMem_Raw! https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0445/ -- Since pymalloc is only used for small memory allocations, I understand that small objects will not more be allocated on the heap memory, but only in pymalloc arenas which are allocated by mmap. The advantage of arenas is that it's possible to "punch holes" in the memory when a whole arena is freed, whereas the heap memory has the famous "fragmentation" issue because the heap is a single contiguous memory block. The libc malloc() uses mmap() for allocations larger than a threshold which is now dynamic, and initialized to 128 kB or 256 kB by default (I don't recall exactly the default value). Is there a risk of *higher* memory fragmentation if we start to use pymalloc for PyMem_Malloc()? Does someone know how to test it? Victor

4 19

PEP 506 secrets module
by Steven D'Aprano 15 এপ্রিল, 2016

15 এপ্রিল, 2016

Hi, As extensively discussed on Python-Ideas, the secrets module and PEP 506 is (I hope) ready for pronouncement. https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0506/ There is code and tests here: https://bitbucket.org/sdaprano/secrets or you can run hg clone https://sdaprano@bitbucket.org/sdaprano/secrets The code is written for and tested on Python 2.6, 2.7, 3.1 - 3.4. -- Steve

13 28

Not receiving bug tracker emails
by Martin Panter 14 এপ্রিল, 2016

14 এপ্রিল, 2016

For the last ~36 hours I have stopped receiving emails for messages posted in the bug tracker. Is anyone else having this problem? Has anything changed recently? I have had it set to send to my gmail.com address since the beginning. At the moment the last bug message email is <https://bugs.python.org/issue19959#msg262569> with “Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:19:49 +0000”. I have checked spam and they are not going there. Earlier this year I had to set up a rule to avoid lots of tracker emails suddenly going to spam. I suspect there was something about the emails that Google doesn’t like (though I don’t understand the technical details). Maybe this has recently gotten worse at the Google end?

6 16

GSoC: looking for a student to help on FAT Python
by Victor Stinner 5 এপ্রিল, 2016

5 এপ্রিল, 2016

Hi, I am now looking for a Google Summer of Code (GSoC) student to help me of my FAT Python project, a new static optimizer for CPython 3.6 using specialization with guards. The FAT Python project is already fully functional, the code is written and tested. I need help to implement new efficient optimizations to "finish" the project and prove that my design allows to really run applications faster. FAT Python project: https://faster-cpython.readthedocs.org/fat_python.html fatoptimizer module: https://fatoptimizer.readthedocs.org/ Slides of my talk at FOSDEM: https://github.com/haypo/conf/raw/master/2016-FOSDEM/fat_python.pdf The "fatoptimizer" optimizer is written in pure Python. I'm looking for a student who knows compilers especially static optimizations like loop unrolling and function inlining. For concrete tasks, take a look at the TODO list: https://fatoptimizer.readthedocs.org/en/latest/todo.html Hurry up students! The deadline is in 1 week! (Sorry, I'm late for my project...) -- PSF GSoC, Python core projects: https://wiki.python.org/moin/SummerOfCode/2016/python-core All PSF GSoC projects: https://wiki.python.org/moin/SummerOfCode/2016 GSOC: https://developers.google.com/open-source/gsoc/ Victor

3 2