On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Eric Firing <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > I didn't like the fact that it overlaps with count. Although I suppose it could be the minimum and count the maximum if we enforce min_count <= count. But that still seems a bit clumsy. Chuck
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
