[issue1164953] logging.basicConfig creates phantom handler

Vinay Sajip added the comment: > There were no request to change the behaviour, because there is already this > closed issue where it is clearly said that this won't be fixed. Sure, but this issue seldom comes up as a point of confusion on comp.lang.python. If you think the documentation is c

[issue1164953] logging.basicConfig creates phantom handler

anatoly techtonik added the comment: There were no request to change the behaviour, because there is already this closed issue where it is clearly said that this won't be fixed. However, this doesn't cancel the fact that logging package needs enhancements to be more pythonic (i.e. intuitive a

[issue1164953] logging.basicConfig creates phantom handler

Vinay Sajip added the comment: > anatoly techtonik added the comment: > > I know that it is by design, but from all logging users you may be the only > one > who keeps this behaviour in mind. The message why basicConfig() failed will > be > more user-friendly. You're not likely to be awar

[issue1164953] logging.basicConfig creates phantom handler

anatoly techtonik added the comment: I know that it is by design, but from all logging users you may be the only one who keeps this behaviour in mind. The message why basicConfig() failed will be more user-friendly. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue1164953] logging.basicConfig creates phantom handler

Vinay Sajip added the comment: @anatoly: What failure do you mean? The behaviour that logistix described is not a failure, it's by design. See my closing comment. -- ___ Python tracker _

[issue1164953] logging.basicConfig creates phantom handler

anatoly techtonik added the comment: Can basicConfig() report its failure with DEBUG level when called twice? -- nosy: +techtonik ___ Python tracker ___ __