Message105742
I agree with Tim. Drop the zero-info glosses. For real_quick_ratio(),
"Return an upper bound on ratio() even more quickly."
should be sufficient (assuming that it *is* always quicker.
Just curious, The descriptions say ratio() <= quick_ratio() and ratio() <= very_quick_ratio. is it also guaranteed that quick_ratio() <= real_quick_ratio()? Or might one 'luck out' with a better answer from the faster method? (I can imagine either being true.) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-05-14 19:11:01 | terry.reedy | set | recipients:
+ terry.reedy, tim.peters, loewis, akuchling, r.david.murray, methane, docs@python |
2010-05-14 19:11:01 | terry.reedy | set | messageid: <1273864261.18.0.236753697541.issue8686@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-05-14 19:10:59 | terry.reedy | link | issue8686 messages |
2010-05-14 19:10:58 | terry.reedy | create | |
|