Le mardi 20 décembre 2011 à 10:57 -0500, Benjamin Peterson a écrit : > 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?
Definitely. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
