Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
(though calling logging.basicConfig() still produces some overhead, it does not
pull me away from the task I’m currently doing)
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue20
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
Just calling basicConfig() is not problematic.
Specifying the format is what requires mental investment (because for that I
need to read up on the config options).
Would it be possible to add a simple way to select a certain logging style?
In
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
I do not think it is necessary to change the defaults, but I do think that it
would help users of python.
In the usecase of bigger applications, the default logging format does not
matter: the overhead of logging.basicConfig() only happens once while
New submission from Arne Babenhauserheide:
Currently the default operation of logging prints messages like the following:
INFO:root: Milk found.
This is close to a print-call, but not much more useful - especially not in
small scripts. To make the default settings more useful to quick scripts
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
…you were faster than me (I only managed to get the repo onto my current
computer yesterday and the children kept me occupied).
Thank you!
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
I’ll create them as soon as I get the time.
It’s not as if that’s really hard - but I still have to do it (need to diff
against current tip - I already merged, so that should work without problems
Changes by Arne Babenhauserheide :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file27494/sort-argument-2.7.diff
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14900>
___
___
Pytho
Changes by Arne Babenhauserheide :
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file27491/sort-argument-2.7.diff
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14900>
___
___
Changes by Arne Babenhauserheide :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file27493/sort-argument-3.2.diff
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14900>
___
___
Pytho
Changes by Arne Babenhauserheide :
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file27492/sort-argument-3.2.diff
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14900>
___
___
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
Jepp, I missed that. I hope the added patches clear that up.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14
Changes by Arne Babenhauserheide :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file27492/sort-argument-3.2.diff
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14900>
___
___
Pytho
Changes by Arne Babenhauserheide :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file27491/sort-argument-2.7.diff
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14900>
___
___
Pytho
Changes by Arne Babenhauserheide :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file27485/profile-docs-2.7.diff
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14900>
___
___
Pytho
Changes by Arne Babenhauserheide :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file27484/profile-docs-3.2.diff
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14900>
___
___
Pytho
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
Copyright-assignment signed and sent.
Thanks!
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14900>
___
___
Pytho
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
Did you get to taking a look?
Is there anything I should change?
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
Thank you!
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14900>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
What would be the best way to get this patch reviewed?
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14900>
___
___
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
I also think that rounding half away from zero would be the most obvious
choice, as it does not introduce a bias for random numbers distributed around 0
while being close to what I would expect from school mathematics.
The case of n*(random() - 0.5
Changes by Arne Babenhauserheide :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file25698/3.2-1-headings-sortable.diff
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14
Changes by Arne Babenhauserheide :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file25697/3.2-0-pcalls.diff
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14900>
___
___
Python-bug
Changes by Arne Babenhauserheide :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file25696/2.7-1-headings-sortable.diff
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14
New submission from Arne Babenhauserheide :
cProfile reports the profiling result in a table with the headers
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall filename:lineno(function)
The respective arguments are
calls time -cumulative - nfl
Since I had to lookup these
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
cdecimal sounds great! when is it scheduled for inclusion?
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue13
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
I did not know about rounding to even, so maybe there should be a warning in
the 2.7 documentation, that the behavior changed in python 3 (I just checked
that: python2.7 is in line with the documentation).
The first time I stumbled over these issues
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
If the C accelerator for decimal gets decimal performance close to floats
(which I doubt, because it has to do much more), it could be very useful for
me. What is its estimated time to completion?
Even when it is finished, it does not change the
Arne Babenhauserheide added the comment:
Better comparision of decimal and float:
>>> timeit("a+a", setup="from decimal import Decimal, getcontext;
>>> getcontext().prec=17; a = Decimal(1.0)")
21.125790119171143
>>> timeit(&qu
New submission from Arne Babenhauserheide :
Hi,
I just stumbled over round() errors. I read the FAQ¹, and even though the FAQ
states that this is no bug, its implementation is less than ideal.
To illustrate:
>>> round(0.5, 1)
0.0
and
>>> round(5, -1)
0
This is mathem
29 matches
Mail list logo
