We use splitlines() on probable multi-line blocks for nicer ipynb files. But there is a small ambiguity, in that 0 or 1 trailing newlines produce identical output. The only place this really matters is multiple sequential stdout messages.
For instance, run a notebook with the following cell:
for i in range(5):
print i,
sys.stdout.flush()
print '--'
for i in range(5,10):
print i
sys.stdout.flush()
Then save & reload. The new output will have 56789 on one line, instead of on 5 lines like the original output.
PR #1480 now contains a fix, which is replacing item.splitlines() with (item+'\n').splitlines(), which is the true inverse of '\n'.join(lines).
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