Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Robert Kern <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 18:57, Charles R Harris > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > You were supposed to be able to change the default behaviour, but > it didn't > > used to work. I think if you are going to use a warning as a flag > then it > > has to always be raised when a failure occurs, not just the first > time. > > A brief test suggest that in Python 2.5.4, at least, as long as you > set the action to be 'always' before the warning is first issued, it > works. We can do this just after the IOWarning (or whatever) gets > defined. > > > OK, that would work. Although I think a named argument might be a more > transparent way to specify behaviour than setting the warnings.
I agree; using a warning strikes me as an abuse of the warnings mechanism. Instead of a "strict" flag, which I find not particularly expressive--what is it being "strict" about?--how about a "min_count" kwarg to go with the existing "count" kwarg? min_count=None # default; raise ValueError instead of the present warning if fewer than count are found. min_count=0 # Accept whatever you get; no warning, no error. min_count=N # raise ValueError if fewer than N are found. This is more flexible than using a "strict" flag, and the kwarg is more descriptive. Eric > > Chuck > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Numpy-discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
