[issue37575] Python Documentation on strings ( section 3.1.2.)
New submission from Srikanth :
In section 3.1.2 of the python documentation, its mentioned as below:
Two or more string literals (i.e. the ones enclosed between quotes) next to
each other are automatically concatenated.
This feature is particularly useful when you want to break long strings:
This only works with two literals though, not with variables or expressions:
However, the concatination operation works on variables and expressions also.
Please find the below python code snippet and the output:
Python Code:
-
s1='Hello'
s2=' World '
s3=' How are you ? '
print(s1, s2, "\n", s3, "\n")
print('---')
print('Long time ' 'No see mate ')
print("Hope ", 'All is ' "good")
print('---')
print(s1, 'World'," !!")
print((s1+s2+s3)*2," there ?")
Output:
Hello World
How are you ?
---
Long time No see mate
Hope All is good
---
Hello World !!
Hello World How are you ? Hello World How are you ? there ?
--
assignee: docs@python
components: Documentation
files: Python_Docs_3.1.2_String_Concatination.py
messages: 347754
nosy: Deshpande, docs@python
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: Python Documentation on strings ( section 3.1.2.)
type: resource usage
Added file:
https://bugs.python.org/file48474/Python_Docs_3.1.2_String_Concatination.py
___
Python tracker
<https://bugs.python.org/issue37575>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34965] Python on Docker container using flask is going down after sometime
New submission from Srikanth : We are have created Python 3.5 image on docker container. All applications which are running on non-flask are working fine, but applications which are running on flask 0.12.2 are failing after prolonged usage of the application (Approx after 12 hours). Note: We have enabled heart beat check for python to make sure the container is up which hits every 10 seconds. After approx 12 hours, the application is stopping to respond to heart beat. Any expert suggestion plz. -- components: Tests messages: 327586 nosy: sri_spl priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Python on Docker container using flask is going down after sometime type: crash versions: Python 3.5 ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34965> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34965] Python on Docker container using flask is going down after sometime
Srikanth added the comment: @anton.barkovsky Thank you so much for quick response. I am not pretty sure, but below are the findings so far. The same docker container is used by 30+ applications. All applications are working fine until last week and all of a sudden all apps are going down one by one. Our preliminary analysis is all projects using flask are going down where as apps not using flask are good. We use Kubernetes service layer, so we are checking if there is anything suspicious upgrade happened there as well. I am trying to explore more to see if anybody faced such issues with flask Eg: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24884901/python-flask-webserver-stop-responding Thanks much for taking time -- ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34965> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue34965] Python on Docker container using flask is going down after sometime
Srikanth added the comment: @Windson Yang The container is neither crashing nor responding for requests. Is there a way I can pull any dumps or tracelog, so I can gather and give it to you -- ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue34965> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1372770] email.Header should preserve original FWS
Changes by Srikanth S : -- nosy: +srikanths ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue1372770> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue11492] email.header.Header doesn't fold headers correctly
Changes by Srikanth S : -- nosy: +srikanths ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue11492> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue6942] email.generator.Generator memory consumption
Changes by Srikanth S : -- nosy: +srikanths ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue6942> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1670765] email.Generator: no header wrapping for multipart/signed
Changes by Srikanth S : -- nosy: +srikanths ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue1670765> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue968430] error flattening complex smime signed message
Changes by Srikanth S : -- nosy: +srikanths ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue968430> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue28956] return minimum of modes for a multimodal distribution instead of raising a StatisticsError
Change by Srikanth Anantharam : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +5512 stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue28956> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue28956] return list of modes for a multimodal distribution instead of raising a StatisticsError
Srikanth Anantharam added the comment: Please review the new PR with tests. I'll update the documentation if the PR is acceptable. -- title: return minimum of modes for a multimodal distribution instead of raising a StatisticsError -> return list of modes for a multimodal distribution instead of raising a StatisticsError ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue28956> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue28956] return minimum of modes for a multimodal distribution instead of raising a StatisticsError
New submission from Srikanth Anantharam: return minimum of modes for a multimodal distribution instead of raising a StatisticsError -- components: Library (Lib) messages: 283071 nosy: Srikanth Anantharam priority: normal pull_requests: 3 severity: normal status: open title: return minimum of modes for a multimodal distribution instead of raising a StatisticsError type: behavior versions: Python 3.5 ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue28956> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue28956] return minimum of modes for a multimodal distribution instead of raising a StatisticsError
Srikanth Anantharam added the comment: A better choice would be to return a tuple of values (sliced from the table). And let the user decide which one to use. Hope that's justifiable... Thanks & Regards Srikanth Anantharam +91 7204 350429 https://sria91.github.io/ Sent from Android On 13-Dec-2016 2:20 PM, "Wolfgang Maier" wrote: > > Wolfgang Maier added the comment: > > What's the justification for this proposed change? Isn't it better to > report the fact that there isn't an unambiguous result instead of returning > a rather arbitrary one? > > -- > nosy: +steven.daprano, wolma > versions: +Python 3.7 -Python 3.5 > > ___ > Python tracker > <http://bugs.python.org/issue28956> > ___ > -- ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue28956> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue28956] return minimum of modes for a multimodal distribution instead of raising a StatisticsError
Changes by Srikanth Anantharam : -- pull_requests: +4 ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue28956> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue28956] return minimum of modes for a multimodal distribution instead of raising a StatisticsError
Srikanth Anantharam added the comment: Please see the updated pull request PR 50, with the changes. Thanks & Regards Srikanth Anantharam +91 7204 350429 https://sria91.github.io/ Sent from Android On 13-Dec-2016 3:26 PM, "Srikanth Anantharam" wrote: > > Changes by Srikanth Anantharam : > > > -- > pull_requests: +4 > > ___ > Python tracker > <http://bugs.python.org/issue28956> > ___ > -- ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue28956> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue28956] return minimum of modes for a multimodal distribution instead of raising a StatisticsError
Srikanth Anantharam added the comment: @steven: data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9] is clearly unimodal with mode 8 data would have been bimodal if 4 repeated exactly the same (7) number of times as 8, like this: data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9] in which case the new patch in PR 50 would return a tuple (4, 8) Thanks & Regards Srikanth Anantharam +91 7204 350429 https://sria91.github.io/ Sent from Android On 13-Dec-2016 3:24 PM, "Steven D'Aprano" wrote: Steven D'Aprano added the comment: On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:35:22AM +, Srikanth Anantharam wrote: > > Srikanth Anantharam added the comment: > > A better choice would be to return a tuple of values (sliced from the > table). And let the user decide which one to use. The current mode() function is designed for a very basic use-case, where you have an obvious single mode from discrete data. The problem with dealing with multiple modes is that its not easy to tell the difference between a genuinely multi-modal sample and one which just happens to have a few samples with the same value: data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9] Assuming the sampling is fair, 8 is clearly the mode; but is it bimodal with 4 the second mode? Or perhaps even four modes, 8, 4, 7 and 9? I have plans for introducing a binning function to collect data into bins and run statistics on the bins. That might be a better way to deal with multi-modal samples: if you bin the data (for discrete data, use a bin size of 1) and then look at the frequencies, you can decide how many modes there are. Thanks for the suggestion. -- ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue28956> ___ -- ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue28956> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue25882] argparse help error: arguments created by add_mutually_exclusive_group() are shown outside their parent group created by add_argument_group()
Changes by Srikanth Viswanathan : -- nosy: +srikanth ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue25882> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
