On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Manuel Metz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Huard wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:19 AM, John Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:01 AM, David Huard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
I would oppose any change to histogram callin
David Huard wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:19 AM, John Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:01 AM, David Huard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I would oppose any change to histogram calling convention that does not
>>> fix a critical bug. I agree that using a built-
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:19 AM, John Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:01 AM, David Huard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I would oppose any change to histogram calling convention that does not
>> fix a critical bug. I agree that using a built-in name as an argument is
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:01 AM, David Huard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would oppose any change to histogram calling convention that does not
> fix a critical bug. I agree that using a built-in name as an argument is
> a bug, but I believe it is the lesser evil compared to asking users to
> ch
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Manuel Metz wrote:
>> Please see the end of the mail for the important point !!!
>
> Thank you--I see you are way ahead of me on this. See comments below.
>>
>> Eric Firing wrote:
>>> Manuel,
>>>
>>> Although it doesn't hurt
Manuel Metz wrote:
> Please see the end of the mail for the important point !!!
Thank you--I see you are way ahead of me on this. See comments below.
>
> Eric Firing wrote:
>> Manuel,
>>
>> Although it doesn't hurt, I don't think it is worthwhile changing range
>> to xrange. From the 2.5 docs:
Please see the end of the mail for the important point !!!
Eric Firing wrote:
> Manuel,
>
> Although it doesn't hurt, I don't think it is worthwhile changing range
> to xrange. From the 2.5 docs:
[...snip...]
> Note "minimal" advantage. xrange was intended for special-case use, not
> general