> For example, are you assuming that your clock() call in logging is
> the very first call made?
Yes, we were making that assumption (the time.clock() call in the import of our
log module), which was true in our code, but I can see where it's not a good
thing to assume generally.
> Also, IIUC
> AFAIK, the Windows performance counter has long-term accuracy issues,
> so neither is perfect. Preferably we should have a timer with the long-
> term accuracy of time.time and the short-term accuracy of time.clock.
Thanks for the tip -- yes, I hadn't thought about that, but you're right,
Quer
> A simpler solution would be to caclulate the time it takes to the handle
> the request using time.clock() and include it in the log message.
> Something like:
Thanks, Ross. Actually, we are doing exactly that already -- it's how we
noticed the timestamp issue in the first place. However, that
The Python logging module calls time.time() in LogRecord.__init__ to fetch the
timestamp of the log record. However, time.time() isn't particularly accurate
on Windows. We're logging start and end of our requests in our web server,
which can be milliseconds apart, and the log timestamps often sh
Wow -- thanks, guys. And who said Python only gives you one way to do
things. :-) Metaclasses, globals(), and __subclasses__. Thank Duncan
for the __subclassess__ tip -- I didn't know about that.
I'd totally overlooked globals(). It's exactly what I was looking for
-- thanks, Peter. And I like yo
Replying to myself here, after discovering more. :-)
> Is there a way to get __thismodule__ in Python?
It looks like __thismodule__ is just sys.modules[__name__]. Neat.
Hmmm ... does sys.modules always already contain the currently-being-
loaded module? Or is this a hack that only happens to wo
Is there a way to get __thismodule__ in Python? That is, the current
module you're in. Or isn't that known until the end of the module?
For instance, if I'm writing a module of message types/classes, like
so:
class SetupMessage(Message):
number = 1
class ResetMessage(Message):
number = 2
> Has anyone thought about alternatives? Is there a previous discussion
> on this I can look up?
Okay, I just emailed the BDFL and asked if he could tell me the origin
of the double underscore syntax for __special__ methods, and what he
said I'm pretty sure he won't mind me posting here:
> [Guid
> > Then again, what's stopping us just using a single leading underscore?
> > Nobody calls their own private methods _init or _add
>
> You must be looking at different code from the rest of us. A single
> leading underscore on the name *is* the convention for "this attribute
> is not part of the
> My editor actually renders [underscores] as miniature chess pieces.
> The bartender said she runs a pre-execution step, that searches and
> replaces a double-colon with the underscores.
Heh, that makes me think. Great use for character encodings! Just like
Tim Hatch's "pybraces", we could use a
> [Terry Jan Reedy]
> No, the reservered special names are supposed to be ugly ;-) -- or at least
> to stand out. However, since special methods are almost always called
> indirectly by syntax and not directly, only the class writer or reader, but
> not users, generally see them.
Fair enough, bu
Hi guys,
I've been using Python for some time now, and am very impressed with
its lack of red tape and its clean syntax -- both probably due to the
BDFL's ability to know when to say "no".
Most of the things that "got me" initially have been addressed in
recent versions of Python, or are being ad
12 matches
Mail list logo
