On 2/14/06, Michael Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It doesn't seem to me that math.nice has an obvious meaning.
I don't disagree, I think math.nice is a terrible name. I was
objecting to the desire to try to come up with interesting, different
names in every module namespace.
> Regards,
> Mi
It doesn't seem to me that math.nice has an obvious meaning.
Regards,
Michael
On 2/14/06, Crutcher Dunnavant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/12/06, Alan Gauld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> However I do dislike the name nice() - there is already a nice() in the
> > >> os module with a fairly
On 2/12/06, Alan Gauld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> However I do dislike the name nice() - there is already a nice() in the
> >> os module with a fairly well understood function. But I'm sure some
>
> > Presumably it would be located somewhere like the math module.
>
> For sure, but let's avoid
>> However I do dislike the name nice() - there is already a nice() in the
>> os module with a fairly well understood function. But I'm sure some
> Presumably it would be located somewhere like the math module.
For sure, but let's avoid as many name clashes as we can.
Python is very good at manag
"Alan Gauld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However I do dislike the name nice() - there is already a nice() in the
> os module with a fairly well understood function. But I'm sure some
> time with a thesaurus can overcome that single mild objection. :-)
Presumably it would be located somewhere lik
I have no particularly strong view on the concept (except that I usually
see the "problem" as a valuable opportunity to introduce a concept
that has far wider reaching consequences than floating point
numbers!).
However I do dislike the name nice() - there is already a nice() in the
os module with
