Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes: > Yep, that's what I had assumed you were going to do (this did come up > in the big thread about the logging docs, but you may have missed it). I hadn't missed it - I'm just spelling out in more detail what I'm going to do. > That said, you can't get a one-to-one correspondence in this case > anyway, since some of the parameters relate to multiple attributes > (e.g. "lvl" becomes both "levelNo" and "levelName"). > > It is rare that anyone will be constructing a LogRecord manually > though, so I don't think the parameter names matter all that much in > practice. It is far more common that people will be creating them > implicitly through the Logger event notification methods or by > deserialising them. I agree, it's a pretty unlikely scenario. Of course, I do make use of the parameter names in the dictConfig approach, so I can't really complain. I should hopefully remember this when I'm writing out a method or function signature for a public API :-) Regards, Vinay
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