Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> added the comment: Thanks for tackling this Terry. Did you include a patch, i.e. a diff file? If not, the “patch” keyword does not apply, IIUC. Plain English suggestions are helpful but they’re reviewed in a different way than a diff.
“The 3.x docs are by design pretty much free of 2.x references. Which is to say, they are a fresh start with 3.0 as the base.“ True. That said, I would leave footnote 4, since it provides a useful information for people caring about performance, and may interest them in digging into the details of the implementation. It may need an explicit mention “in CPython”, though. “So I would also remove footnote 5.” I don’t know. It’s an historical note about an implementation detail; it does no harm (apart maybe taking space for no gain) and may be interesting to some people. Does a core dev have an opinion on that (Georg?). “Footnote 4 is currently needed because the text suggests something that is not true.” I can’t say if the text is inaccurate or just difficultly readable. “"Mappings (dictionaries) compare equal if and only if they have the same key, value) pairs. Order comparision raise TypeError."” I’ll even say “the same (key, value) pairs, irregardless of their order”. Is the term “order comparisons” used in the doc? If not, its meaning is non-obvious, and I’d like to find something clearer. “"Comparisons other than equality testing raise a TypeError." is not quite correct because 'comparisons' include 'is' and 'in' which do work as expected.” I thought “is” was clearly identity and “in” membership or containement testing in the doc. Can you support your claim? Cheers ---------- nosy: +merwok _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9132> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
