Slightly improve Epochs repr

[cbrnr]

This PR slightly improves the Epochs repr from

<Epochs |  86 events (good & bad), -0.199795 – 0.499488 s, baseline -0.199795 – 0 s, ~3.2 MB, data not loaded,

to

<Epochs | 86 events (good & bad), -0.20 – 0.50 s (baseline -0.20 – 0.00 s), ~3.2 MB, data not loaded,

Changes include removing a space after the | symbol and rounding times to two decimal places.

I'm showing only the first line, since the other lines are not affected.

[hoechenberger]

If we need to round, could we use 3 decimal places?

[cbrnr]

If we need to round, could we use 3 decimal places?

🤔 this will result in many trailing zeros for standard time segments. I'd prefer a dynamic approach that shows a maximum of 2 (or 3) decimal places. Would that be a big problem?

<Epochs | 86 events (good & bad), -0.2 – 0.5 s (baseline -0.2 – 0 s), ~3.2 MB, data not loaded,

If it bothers you that the four numbers show a different number of decimal places, we could also use the minimum number of decimal places for all numbers:

<Epochs | 86 events (good & bad), -0.2 – 0.5 s (baseline -0.2 – 0.0 s), ~3.2 MB, data not loaded,

But this would require a bit more complexity in the method.

[cbrnr]

With three decimal places, it would look like this:

<Epochs | 86 events (good & bad), -0.2 – 0.499 s (baseline -0.2 – 0 s), ~3.2 MB, data not loaded,

[hoechenberger]

I'm wondering if truncating instead of rounding might actually be the better option here? 🤔

[cbrnr]

I'm wondering if truncating instead of rounding might actually be the better option here? 🤔

Why? IMO rounding is the more accurate option than truncating...

[hoechenberger]

I'm just thinking out loud, it's just a gut feeling ... truncating would make it more clear that / if the displayed value is not "exact", you know? If I see 0.199 instead of 0.2, I know that things might be off by one sample or so. Again, just brainstorming here..

[cbrnr]

Yes, it's always going to be a tradeoff, because we're showing time as opposed to samples. If you want accuracy, we should show samples. If we stick to time (which I'd prefer), we can just as well round to make the output a bit easier to read. Since we won't need more than 1ms of precision, I'd round to 3 digits as you suggested, and if the rounded value is e.g. -0.2 instead of -0.199795, then that's OK. I find that -0.199795 – 0.499488 s is really hard to read when all I want to know is the epoch definition to some precision. 6 digits is overkill for me. But yes, I get your point. What do others think?

[agramfort]

showing rounding to ms seems ok to me

[drammock]

I would vote for max of 3 digits (ms precision) but omit trailing zeros

[hoechenberger]

I would vote for max of 3 digits (ms precision) but omit trailing zeros

+1, seems like a good solution to me after all

[hoechenberger]

@drammock Feel free to merge if you're happy!

[cbrnr]

@drammock anything else you want me to do? If not, please feel free to merge.

[hoechenberger]

I'm going ahead with merging, since all comments seem to have been addressed.

@drammock if you disagree please ping me and i will revert

thanks @cbrnr