Francis MB added the comment:
Good options itemization!
>> This would give us a clean, fast API with no flags:
>> mode(Iterable) -> scalar
>> multimode(Iterable) -> list
[...]
>> For any of those options, we should still add a separate multimode()
>> f
Francis MB added the comment:
>> [...] This keeps the signature simple (Iterable -> Scalar). [...]
>>
>> Categorical, binned, or ordinal data:
>>
>> mode(data: Iterable, *, first_tie=False) -> object
>> multimode(data: Iterable) -> List[ob
Francis MB added the comment:
Good point Raymond!
Only a minor observation on the packages API:
[1] SciPy: scipy.stats.mode(a, axis=0, nan_policy='propagate')
"Returns an array of the modal (most common) **value** in the passed array."
--> Here it claims to return just ONE v
Francis MB added the comment:
>> There may be better names for the flag. "tie_goes_to_first_encountered"
>> seemed a bit long though ;-)
Could it may be an alternative to set the mode tie case in a form like:
def mode(seq, *, case=CHOOSE_FIRST):
[...]
(or TIE_CH
Francis MB added the comment:
Documentation cosmetic:
# * Prefer ECDHE over DHE for better performance
# * Prefer any AES-GCM over any AES-CBC for better performance and security
+# * Prefer any AES-GCM over any AES-CBC for better performance and security
The patch seems to be adding
Francis MB added the comment:
>From the two checks on Python/compile.c:
+ expr_ty meth = e->v.Call.func;
[...]
+/* Check [...] that
+ the call doesn't have keyword parameters. */
[...]
+/* Check that there are no *varargs types of arguments. */
[...]
I just wonder how many
Francis MB added the comment:
Can this issue be closed?
IMHO it's not clear what still needs to be done. The patch seems to be there
already.
Thanks in advance!
--
nosy: +francismb
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org
Francis MB added the comment:
I'm not sure if it's relevant but in the patch you changed
previous 'assert(check)' with 'if (not check) goto error'.
But the new patch code adds 'assert(len == 0 || Py_REFCNT(r1) == 1);'
Just curious, is there a reason why couldn't be in the same way
Francis MB added the comment:
AFAICS, this is an enhancement issue for the currently in maintenance branches
2.7 and 3.2.
Does this still applies to 3.5? (otherwise this issue should/could be closed).
--
nosy: +francismb
type: - enhancement
Francis MB added the comment:
Is this issue superseded and duplicated as stated in the history?
Thanks in advance!
--
nosy: +francismb
type: - behavior
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10764
Francis MB added the comment:
Just updating the type to 'behavior'.
I can still reproduce this issue:
$ python2.7
Python 2.7.8 (default, Sep 9 2014, 22:08:43)
[GCC 4.9.1] on linux2
Type help, copyright, credits or license for more information.
class Y(long):
... def __oct__(self
Francis MB added the comment:
Do have I overseen the patch? or may be doing something wrong?
or isn't anything uploaded?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue11145
Changes by Francis MB franci...@email.de:
--
type: - enhancement
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8481
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Changes by Francis MB franci...@email.de:
--
type: - enhancement
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue11582
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Changes by Francis MB franci...@email.de:
--
type: - behavior
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue6396
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Francis MB added the comment:
I have to thank for your time, David!
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22512
___
___
Python-bugs
Francis MB added the comment:
Why is test.support.EnvironmentVarGuard preferable over
distutils.test.support.EnvironGuard (with this one I'm not getting the warnings
below)?
If I change the patch to (not so different (?) as in other tests using
EnvironmentVarGuard):
$hg diff
diff -r
Francis MB added the comment:
No problem, but is the, 3 lines, patch ok?
what are the next steps, if yes?
Shouldn't be the issue status now 'patch review' or similar?
Thanks in advance!
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http
Francis MB added the comment:
Hi Éric,
are the changes to distutils2 applied? could the issue be closed (has
resolution:fixed) or is something to be done?
--
nosy: +francismb
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9313
Francis MB added the comment:
Distutils2 is dead.
I wasn't aware of that and I'm sorry for that. In that case that issue can IMHO
be closed.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9313
New submission from Francis MB:
Running the test suite or 'test_distutils' triggers the creation of the
directory '.rpmdb'. I noticed that because somehow that directory was bad
formed and got errors while running the test suite:
error: db5 error(-30969) from dbenv-open: BDB0091
Francis MB added the comment:
I've downloaded 'remove_Netrc_class2.patch' and passes the test suite, the
examples on the documentation run ok and manually from the command line:
$hg tip
changeset: 92597:e29866cb6b98
tag: tip
parent: 92594:d43d4d4ebf2c
parent: 92596
Francis MB added the comment:
A) On the example:
+Also note that some operations (e.g. ``y.append(10)``/``y += [10]`` or
+``y.sort()``) mutate
are you saying:
1) y.append(10) divided by y += [10] or
2) y.append(10) and y += [10]
I don't want to split hairs but reading it fast confused me
Francis MB added the comment:
What we have found out so far is that during file creation the
resolution of the timestamp is higher then at the touch attempt
when a file exists.
Could it help to create 2 files (file 1, wait a bit, file 2) and then do the
checks only with file 1
Francis MB added the comment:
On the other hand, the documentation *does* mention that
'U' is for backwards compatibility and shouldn't be used
with new code.
Shouldn't be some deprecation warning somewhere?
--
nosy: +francismb
___
Python tracker
Francis MB added the comment:
Just a small detail on the patches, they seem to have a typo
(lenght vs. length) on the line:
reading arbitrary lenght lines. RFC 3977 limits NNTP line length to
--
nosy: +francismb
___
Python tracker rep
26 matches
Mail list logo
