Author terry.reedy
Recipients LambertDW, eli.bendersky, georg.brandl, ggenellina, gjb1002, hagna, janpf, jimjjewett, mrotondo, pitrou, r.david.murray, rtvd, sjmachin, terry.reedy, tim.peters, vbr
Date 2010-07-09.01:12:03
SpamBayes Score 2.20559e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
My proposal F, to expose the common frequency threshold as a fourth positional parameter with default 1, would do that: repeat current behavior. We should, and Eli and I would, add some of the anomalous cases to the test suite and verily that the default is to reproduce the current anomalies, and that passing None changes the result.

Any opinions, anyone, on 'common', 'thresh', 'threshold', or anything else as the new parameter name?

We will have to explain in the doc patch that the parameter is new in 2.7.1 to fix a partial bug and that giving any explicit value will make code not run with 2.7 (.0).

Exposing the set of common values as an instance attribute, as I proposed on pydev, would be a new feature not needed to fix the bug. So it should be limited to 3.2.
Date User Action Args
2010-07-09 01:12:05terry.reedysetrecipients: + terry.reedy, tim.peters, georg.brandl, jimjjewett, sjmachin, gjb1002, ggenellina, pitrou, rtvd, vbr, LambertDW, hagna, r.david.murray, eli.bendersky, janpf, mrotondo
2010-07-09 01:12:05terry.reedysetmessageid: <>
2010-07-09 01:12:03terry.reedylinkissue2986 messages
2010-07-09 01:12:03terry.reedycreate