On Monday 8 Jun 2015 07:04 CEST, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 07.06.2015 22:35, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>
>>> And you also posted your solution. I fail to find any question in
>>> your original posting at all.
>>
>> That is because there was no question: I just wanted to share
>> something I thought
On 07.06.2015 22:35, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> And you also posted your solution. I fail to find any question in
>> your original posting at all.
>
> That is because there was no question: I just wanted to share
> something I thought that could be useful. If you would have taken the
> trouble to
On Sunday 7 Jun 2015 20:51 CEST, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 07.06.2015 10:22, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>
>> That only times the function. I explicitly mentioned I want both
>> the needed time AND the output.
>
> And you also posted your solution. I fail to find any question in
> your original posti
On 07.06.2015 10:22, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> That only times the function. I explicitly mentioned I want both the
> needed time AND the output.
And you also posted your solution. I fail to find any question in your
original posting at all.
> Sadly the quality of the answers on this list is goin
On Sunday 7 Jun 2015 11:28 CEST, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Here is a simple example:
>
> http://code.activestate.com/recipes/577896-benchmark-code-with-the-with-statement/
I use that now in my function:
#---
def time_test(function
In a message of Sun, 07 Jun 2015 11:16:30 +0100, Mark Lawrence writes:
>I suggest that you stop asking so many question here. Get your cheque
>book and go for paid support.
Knock this off, please. Some of us dearly like to teach
people who want to explore and learn things.
Laura
--
https://m
On Sunday 7 Jun 2015 13:05 CEST, Tim Golden wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 11:16, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 07/06/2015 09:22, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>>> That only times the function. I explicitly mentioned I want both
>>> the needed time AND the output.
>>>
>>> Sadly the quality of the answers on this l
On Sunday 7 Jun 2015 12:16 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> I suggest that you stop asking so many question here. Get your
> cheque book and go for paid support.
First of all: it was not a question: I shared something I thought was
useful. You can disagree about it being useful, but there is in my
o
On Sunday 7 Jun 2015 11:51 CEST, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 04:39 pm, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>
>> Sometimes I just want to know how much time a function takes, but
>> at the same time I also want the result of the function. For this I
>> wrote the following function: def time_tes
On Sunday 7 Jun 2015 11:28 CEST, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 04:39 pm, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>
>> Sometimes I just want to know how much time a function takes, but
>> at the same time I also want the result of the function. For this I
>> wrote the following function: def time_tes
On Sunday 7 Jun 2015 11:06 CEST, Luca Menegotto wrote:
> Il 07/06/2015 10:22, Cecil Westerhof ha scritto:
>> That only times the function. I explicitly mentioned I want both
>> the needed time AND the output.
>>
>> Sadly the quality of the answers on this list is going down
>
> First of all,
On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 08:16 pm, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> I suggest that you stop asking so many question here. Get your cheque
> book and go for paid support.
Mark, that remark is uncalled for and completely out of line. Cecil is
perfectly entitled to ask questions here, and you are entitled to igno
On 07/06/2015 12:02, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Mark Lawrence :
Get your cheque book and go for paid support.
Are checks still in use in Britain? I thought only Americans still did
that.
Marko
Cheques are still in use in Britain. There was a move a year or so ago
to get rid of them but too m
Mark Lawrence :
> Get your cheque book and go for paid support.
Are checks still in use in Britain? I thought only Americans still did
that.
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 07/06/2015 11:16, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 07/06/2015 09:22, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
That only times the function. I explicitly mentioned I want both the
needed time AND the output.
Sadly the quality of the answers on this list is going down. Here I
get an alternative that does only half what
On 07/06/2015 09:22, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 7 Jun 2015 09:39 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 07/06/2015 07:39, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
Sometimes I just want to know how much time a function takes, but
at the same time I also want the result of the function. For this I
wrote the followi
On Sunday 7 Jun 2015 08:39 CEST, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> Sometimes I just want to know how much time a function takes, but at
> the same time I also want the result of the function. For this I
> wrote the following function: def time_test(function, *args):
> startTime = time.time() results = fun
On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 04:39 pm, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> Sometimes I just want to know how much time a function takes, but at
> the same time I also want the result of the function. For this I wrote
> the following function:
> def time_test(function, *args):
> startTime = time.time()
>
Il 07/06/2015 11:28, Steven D'Aprano ha scritto:
But if your function takes less than, say, 1 millisecond, then your timing
results are probably just meaningless random numbers, affected more by the
other ten thousand processes running on your computer than by the Python
code itself.
That's a
On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 04:39 pm, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> Sometimes I just want to know how much time a function takes, but at
> the same time I also want the result of the function. For this I wrote
> the following function:
> def time_test(function, *args):
> startTime = time.time()
>
Il 07/06/2015 10:22, Cecil Westerhof ha scritto:
> That only times the function. I explicitly mentioned I want both the
> needed time AND the output.
>
> Sadly the quality of the answers on this list is going down
First of all, thank God it's a newsgroup, not a list.
Second, often the qualit
On Sunday 7 Jun 2015 09:39 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 07:39, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> Sometimes I just want to know how much time a function takes, but
>> at the same time I also want the result of the function. For this I
>> wrote the following function: def time_test(function,
On 07/06/2015 07:39, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
Sometimes I just want to know how much time a function takes, but at
the same time I also want the result of the function. For this I wrote
the following function:
def time_test(function, *args):
startTime = time.time()
results
Sometimes I just want to know how much time a function takes, but at
the same time I also want the result of the function. For this I wrote
the following function:
def time_test(function, *args):
startTime = time.time()
results = function(*args)
endTime = time.
24 matches
Mail list logo
