On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Kurt Grandis <[email protected]> wrote: > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9986 > > > This ticket proposes reconciling the code's parameter name, cull_frequency, > with the docs' cull_probability; the ticket proposes standardizing on > cull_probability, which I think would be misleading. > > > The code where cull_frequency actually does its magic shows that it is used > in frequency calculations: > > doomed = [os.path.join(self._dir, k) for (i, k) in enumerate(filelist) if i > % self._cull_frequency == 0] > > and > > doomed = [k for (i, k) in enumerate(self._cache) if i % self._cull_frequency > == 0] > > The default cull_frequency is 3, so the above code would flag every 3rd item > as doomed (1/f or 1/3). While cull_frequency is a more accurate description, > I don't think it is intuitive without seeing the underlying code. > cull_fraction might be a more appropriate and intuitive parameter name (e.g. > what fraction of the cache gets culled). > > cull_fraction?
All of those are misleading, since they actually describe the reciprocal of the parameter. As long as we're open to changing it, I suggest using cull_interval instead. Regards, Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
