Mark Dickinson added the comment:
Thanks, Ezio; I didn't get around to dealing with this as quickly as I meant
to.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15438
___
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: commit review - committed/rejected
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15438
Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset ad0712f4b3e0 by Ezio Melotti in branch '2.7':
#15438: add a note to math.pow() that suggests using **/pow() for integers.
Patch by Mark Dickinson.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ad0712f4b3e0
New changeset 7d95a0aa6b5a by Ezio Melotti in branch
Ezio Melotti added the comment:
LGTM.
(Maybe build the doc and double check that all the links are correct before
committing.)
--
stage: needs patch - commit review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15438
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
Updated patch. Thanks Ezio and David for reviewing.
--
assignee: - mark.dickinson
priority: low - normal
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file29033/issue15438_2.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
Whoops. Removing a bonus non-grammatical 'function'.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file29034/issue15438_3.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15438
Mark Dickinson added the comment:
Anyone wants to suggest a specific wording?
How about the attached patch?
--
keywords: +patch
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file28870/issue15438.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
R. David Murray added the comment:
I don't think it should be .. note, but otherwise it looks fine to me.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15438
___
Changes by Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: -serhiy.storchaka
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15438
___
___
Ezio Melotti added the comment:
Well, the math.pow() doc could use a seealso pointing to the built-in
pow() function perhaps.
Pointing to ``**`` is probably better.
I think that a simple note that mentions the ** operator and when it's better
to use it (and possibly the limitations of
Antoine Pitrou added the comment:
Changing the incredible issue title :-)
--
title: Incredible issue in math.pow - document that math.pow is inappropriate
for integers
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15438
11 matches
Mail list logo