Add stepsize + autodetection of initial, total and stepsize in trange() #273
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Stephen L. <lrq3000@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen L. <lrq3000@gmail.com>
2d8e028 to
f9ca871
Compare
8cade97 to
a65e347
Compare
|
hmm, is this essentially a scale factor? eg instead of displaying 123/1000, show 234/2000? |
|
For stepsize yes, this is essentially a scale factor as far as i can see.
|
|
In that case I'd rather have this implemented as a |
|
Yes and they should multply at printing, like the other PR proposed. Indeed 2016-11-13 11:56 GMT+01:00 Casper da Costa-Luis notifications@github.com:
|
|
closing in favour of #378 |
Implement #265 with 2 strategies: autodetection of stepsize if
len(iterable) != total(total is explicitly specified) + autodetection intrange()ofrange()arguments to feedtqdm()(using a new functiontrange_preprocess()-- I wanted to turntrange()into a class but then the wrapper did not work anymore, it cannot just return a wrapped range under tqdm without wrapping in trange also).TODO:
trange_preprocess()in alltrange()-like of submodules.examples/simple_tests.py) -> significative difference: 15% in manual mode and 5-10% in iterable mode. All because oftqdm.stepsize. If we removetqdm.stepsizebut keeptrange_preprocess(), we would remove all performance impact, but iterable mode tqdm won't be able to account forrange()'s stepsize (onlyinitialandtotal, which is already good but not perfect). What should we do @casperdcl ?