> This proposed function is much more complicated than what was requested. > While it does compress multiple lines into a single call, I think it > does not achieve simplification. > > I suggest leaving out some options and/or splitting some of those that > remain into separate functions. Also, consider changing to name to > something active instead of configuration related. The idea is making > something like the following possible: As a rather intense user of the logging module, I have to disagree with Richard here. The basicConfig() signature that Vinay proposes covers pretty much everything I would like to be able to do except setting an explicit handler, which it clearly shouldn't handle. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4