[Numpy-discussion] Inconsistent error messages.
Charles R Harris
Sat May 23 20:06:59 CDT 2009
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Eric Firing <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Charles R Harris wrote:
> > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Robert Kern <email@example.com
> > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 18:57, Charles R Harris
> > <email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>>
> > > You were supposed to be able to change the default behaviour, but
> > it didn't
> > > used to work. I think if you are going to use a warning as a flag
> > then it
> > > has to always be raised when a failure occurs, not just the first
> > time.
> > A brief test suggest that in Python 2.5.4, at least, as long as you
> > set the action to be 'always' before the warning is first issued, it
> > works. We can do this just after the IOWarning (or whatever) gets
> > defined.
> > OK, that would work. Although I think a named argument might be a more
> > transparent way to specify behaviour than setting the warnings.
> I agree; using a warning strikes me as an abuse of the warnings
> mechanism. Instead of a "strict" flag, which I find not particularly
> expressive--what is it being "strict" about?--how about a "min_count"
> kwarg to go with the existing "count" kwarg?
I didn't like the fact that it overlaps with count. Although I suppose it
could be the minimum and count the maximum if we enforce min_count <= count.
But that still seems a bit clumsy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Numpy-discussion