This matches the style used in C, which is good for consistency:
a_really_long_function_name(
double_indent_after_first_newline(
single_indent_nested_newlines))
We were already doing this for multiline control-flow statements, simply
because I'm not sure how else you could indent this without making
things really confusing:
if a_really_long_function_name(
double_indent_after_first_newline(
single_indent_nested_newlines)):
do_the_thing()
This was the only real difference style-wise between the Python code and
C code, so now both should be following roughly the same style (80 cols,
double-indent multiline exprs, prefix multiline binary ops, etc).
Mainly to avoid conflicts with match results m, this frees up the single
letter variables m for other purposes.
Choosing a two letter alias was surprisingly difficult, but mt is nice
in that it somewhat matches it (for itertools) and ft (for functools).
Note there's a bit of subtlety here, field _types_ are still infered,
but the intention of the fields, i.e. if the field contains data vs
row name/other properties, must be unambiguous in the scripts.
There is still a _tiny_ bit of inference. For most scripts only one
of --by or --fields is strictly needed, since this makes the purpose of
the other fields unambiguous.
The reason for this change is so the scripts are a bit more reliable,
but also because this simplifies the data parsing/inference a bit.
Oh, and this also changes field inference to use the csv.DictReader's
fieldnames field instead of only inspecting the returned dicts. This
should also save a bit of O(n) overhead when parsing CSV files.
1. Being able to inspect results before benchmarks complete was useful
to track their status. It also allows some analysis even if a
benchmark fails.
2. Moving these scripts out of bench.py allows them to be a bit more
flexible, at the cost of CSV parsing/structuring overhead.
3. Writing benchmark measurements immediately avoids RAM buildup as we
store intermediate measurements for each bench permutation. This may
increase the IO bottleneck, but we end up writing the same number of
lines, so not sure...
I realize avg.py has quite a bit of overlap with summary.py, but I don't
want to entangle them further. summary.py is already trying to do too
much as is...
Christopher Haster