two updates for the progressbar i want to propose. First the ability to turn of the progressbar and secondly make the progressbar only singular line and not space filling.
causes a massive output which is especially distracting when working in a jupyter notebook, if you go for 1000 iterations or more you have significant scrolling time.
0%| |NumExpr defaulting to 4 threads.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
2%|# |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
4%|## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
6%|#### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
8%|##### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
10%|####### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
12%|######## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
14%|########## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
16%|########### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
18%|############# |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
20%|############## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
22%|################ |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
24%|################# |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
26%|################## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
28%|#################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
30%|##################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
32%|####################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
34%|######################## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
36%|########################## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
38%|########################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
40%|############################# |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
42%|############################## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
44%|################################ |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
46%|################################# |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
48%|################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
50%|#################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
52%|##################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
54%|####################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
56%|######################################## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
58%|########################################## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
60%|########################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
62%|############################################# |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
64%|############################################## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
66%|################################################ |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
68%|################################################# |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
70%|################################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
72%|#################################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
74%|###################################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
76%|####################################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
78%|######################################################## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
80%|########################################################## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
82%|########################################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
84%|############################################################# |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
86%|############################################################## |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
88%|################################################################ |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
90%|################################################################# |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
92%|################################################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
94%|#################################################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
96%|###################################################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
98%|####################################################################### |Found 1 candidate(s) in the (0,606) gap.
Found 1 candidate(s) in the (606,1169) gap.
100%|#########################################################################|
What needs to be created or improved?
two updates for the progressbar i want to propose. First the ability to turn of the progressbar and secondly make the progressbar only singular line and not space filling.
Can you provide an example?
currently calling
causes a massive output which is especially distracting when working in a jupyter notebook, if you go for 1000 iterations or more you have significant scrolling time.
What is the goal / expected behaviour?
I expect a usable argument for example like this:
which will supress the progressbar. And in the case of progress being true a progressbar that is single line as such;