Terry J. Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> added the comment:
Tal, trying to understand your confused description of what behavior you want to fix required me to experiment and think. There are at least 2 separate issues: triggering of auto-squeeze and lines reported (regardless of what triggers squeezing). The following pair of experiments exhibits inconsistency in both respects. >>> print('a'*3920) # Fills 49 80-char lines, correctly not squeezed. ... >>> print('a'*3921) # Wrapped to 50 lines, correctly auto squeezed. [Squeezed text (50 lines).] # Correct number when reporting wrapped lines. >>> print('a'*3921+'\n') # Ditto, but not auto-squeezed. ... # Squeeze manually [Squeezed text (1 line).] # Different line count -- of output lines. >>> print('a'*3920+'\na') # Not initially squeezed, '2 lines'. >From msg331784 it appears that you are more concerned here with auto squeeze >triggering than with line count. Now that I think I know what you are trying >to fix, I can review the code change. I agree to consider the ambiguity between output lines and display lines, and the effect on line count, later. Part of my thinking with the simple auto-squeeze formula, besides just simplifying the code, it this. Raymond claimed that squeezing slows down printing. If measurably true, one way to avoid a slow down would be to use a simple heuristic formula to estimate the number of wrapped lines instead of exactly counting. This would be a separate issue, if needed. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue35208> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com