2011/12/20 Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net>: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:42:43 +0100 > benjamin.peterson <python-check...@python.org> wrote: >> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/d85efd73b0e1 >> changeset: 74088:d85efd73b0e1 >> branch: 3.2 >> parent: 74082:71e5a083f9b1 >> user: Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> >> date: Mon Dec 19 16:41:11 2011 -0500 >> summary: >> don't mention implementation detail >> >> files: >> Doc/library/operator.rst | 10 +++++----- >> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> >> diff --git a/Doc/library/operator.rst b/Doc/library/operator.rst >> --- a/Doc/library/operator.rst >> +++ b/Doc/library/operator.rst >> @@ -12,11 +12,11 @@ >> from operator import itemgetter, iadd >> >> >> -The :mod:`operator` module exports a set of functions implemented in C >> -corresponding to the intrinsic operators of Python. For example, >> -``operator.add(x, y)`` is equivalent to the expression ``x+y``. The >> function >> -names are those used for special class methods; variants without leading and >> -trailing ``__`` are also provided for convenience. > > I disagree with this change. Knowing that they are written in C is > important when deciding to pass them to e.g. sort() or sorted(), > because you know it will be faster than an arbitrary pure Python > function.
In that case, I would rather speak of "fast" functions rather than "implemented in C" functions (a la the itertools docs). Would that be acceptable? -- Regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
