On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Marty Alchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, as long as the floor's open, I'd like to make sure file storage
> code is consistent. Currently, it uses filename instead of file_name
> or just name, and it also uses size instead of file_size. I assume I
> should go
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just talked about this with Mike on IRC; I think chunk() is
> non-obvious and we're gonna change it to chunks(). Hopefully nobody's
> written so much code in the last week to be pissed.
>
> Also, we're going to chang
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Luke Plant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The docs say '.chunks()' , which makes more sense to me, but the code
> says '.chunk()' (2 * for implementation, 1 * used)
>
> It's not too late to fix the code, otherwise the docs need changing.
I just talked about this wi
The docs say '.chunks()' , which makes more sense to me, but the code
says '.chunk()' (2 * for implementation, 1 * used)
It's not too late to fix the code, otherwise the docs need changing.
Luke
--
"Ineptitude: If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy
doing it poorly." (desp
