On 24 August 2010 22:22, Benjamin Root wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Anne Archibald
> wrote:
>>
>> On 24 August 2010 19:16, Erik Tollerud wrote:
>> > Whoops, yes, that should be True... Also realized a slight error in
>> > the description of how the mimum is set - both of those are f
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Anne Archibald
wrote:
> On 24 August 2010 19:16, Erik Tollerud wrote:
> > Whoops, yes, that should be True... Also realized a slight error in
> > the description of how the mimum is set - both of those are fixed in
> > the attached diff.
>
> Um, this is a kind of
On 24 August 2010 19:16, Erik Tollerud wrote:
> Whoops, yes, that should be True... Also realized a slight error in
> the description of how the mimum is set - both of those are fixed in
> the attached diff.
Um, this is a kind of important point of style: it is much better to
use "if foo:" than "
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Erik Tollerud wrote:
> Whoops, yes, that should be True... Also realized a slight error in
> the description of how the mimum is set - both of those are fixed in
> the attached diff.
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> > On 08/24/2010 08:39 A
Whoops, yes, that should be True... Also realized a slight error in
the description of how the mimum is set - both of those are fixed in
the attached diff.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 08:39 AM, Erik Tollerud wrote:
>> I just realized the patch I sent before
On 08/24/2010 08:39 AM, Erik Tollerud wrote:
> I just realized the patch I sent before includes some other changes...
> the attached version should only be the fix for this particular bug.
+if log is true:
+minimum = 1.0
Don't you mean True, not true?
Eric
-
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Erik Tollerud wrote:
> Sorry for the re-ping if it was taken care of in some way I didn't
> undertand, but this doesn't seem to have been changed on the trunk
> svn... should it have been, or is there some other branch that this
> stuff is being worked on?
>
> On T
Sorry for the re-ping if it was taken care of in some way I didn't
undertand, but this doesn't seem to have been changed on the trunk
svn... should it have been, or is there some other branch that this
stuff is being worked on?
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Erik Tollerud wrote:
> Great - if a
Did this fix ever get applied? I was looking at some other svn
changes and it still says none of this part of legend.py has been
altered...
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Jae-Joon Lee wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Erik Tollerud wrote:
>> Jae-Joon, your patch looks to be effectively
I just realized the patch I sent before includes some other changes...
the attached version should only be the fix for this particular bug.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Erik Tollerud wrote:
> This is definitely a bug, but I thought I'd clarify and add in a little
> more...
>
> The distinctio
10 matches
Mail list logo
