Re: Summary of today's developer meeting

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:06:18AM +0100, Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 03 März 2010 01:28:21 schrieb Chris McDonough:
> > On 3/2/10 2:50 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Chris McDonough<[email protected]>  wrote:
> > >> On 3/2/10 1:09 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > >>> Hi there,
> > >>>
> > >>>   >  Chris McDonough suggests to ponder further structuring of the ZTK
> > >>>   > into separate sub-sets which might allow us to get better mileage
> > >>>   > regarding maintenance and release management. He gave the example
> > >>>   > of the "Bicycle Toolkit" (zope.component, zope.configuration,
> > >>>   >  zope.interface).
> > >>>
> > >>> -1
> > >>
> > >> I don't know who "people" are, and I don't know who "they" are, and I
> > >> don't know who broke what.
> > >
> > > No one should have to extract anything from the ZTK, because, AFAIK,
> > > the ZTK isn't a distribution.
> >
> > You've both successfully beaten any initiative out of me again.  Well done.
> > Full speed ahead.
> 
> Hmmm, interesting:
> 
> --------------- snip -------------------
> 
> def hickhack(*kd):
>    probabitlity = [0]*99 + [1]
            ^

Typo ;)

Using 3 spaces for indentation is an... interesting... choice.

>    return random.choice(probability)
> 
> def zope_community_work():
>    while 1:

'while True' looks better.

>       someone = random.choice(community)   
>       give_input(someone)
> 
>       disagree_members = ['cmember1', 'cmember2', 'cmember3']
>       disagree(someone, disagree_members)
>       
>       for i in range(20):
>          agree = hickhack(
>              random.choice([someone]*10+disagree_members*2+community)))

hickhack ignores its argument.  I'm not sure what you're trying to
express here.

>          if agree: 
>             break
> 
>       if agree:
>          worker_thread.start()
>       else:                  
>          for i in range 4:

You started omitting parentheses from function calls.

>             feel_pissed_off(random.choice([someone]*10+disagree_members))
>          for i in range 10:
>             sleep 100
>             print "Stalemate!"
> 
> ---------------- snip -----------------
> 
> As anyone can see, "worker_thread" is not started often, which is not optimal.
> How could this be improved?

More positive feedback, less negative feedback.

Marius Gedminas
now wondering if his humorous deadpan PEP-8 review of pseudocode will be
considered positive or negative...
-- 
http://pov.lt/ -- Zope 3 consulting and development

_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist  -  [email protected]
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLjjSekVdEXeem148RAvcBAJ9SwopfPABaYdziaoIlh3NOyfFEZACdFPf5
ro1IinDnXSlaLiyXyTsrw8g=
=Sprp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----