Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset 181c170c6270 by Chris Jerdonek in branch '3.2':
Issue #16629: Fix IDLE idlelib.CallTips test. Patch by Roger Serwy.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/181c170c6270
--
___
Python tracker
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
Any comments on the latest patch, in particular on the int() docstring?
Especially you, Terry, as you created the issue?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue14783
Andrew Svetlov added the comment:
LGTM
--
nosy: +asvetlov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue14783
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Terry J. Reedy added the comment:
I checked pretty carefully and it looks good to me.
--
stage: patch review - commit review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue14783
___
Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset e4598364ea29 by Chris Jerdonek in branch '3.2':
Issue #14783: Improve int() docstring and also str(), range(), and slice().
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/e4598364ea29
New changeset 365da47a6dc1 by Chris Jerdonek in branch '3.3':
Issue #14783:
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
Leaving open to backport applicable portions to 2.7. I should get to that
later today.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue14783
___
Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset 3b484f53f91b by Chris Jerdonek in branch '2.7':
Issue #14783: Backport changes from 3.2.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3b484f53f91b
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Changes by Chris Jerdonek chris.jerdo...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: commit review - committed/rejected
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue14783
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
Attaching proposed patch. This updates the docstrings for int() and str(), as
well as for range() and slice() in a similar way.
It also makes the documentation for str() closer to that of the docstring. The
documentation for int(), range(), and slice() has
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
The change for issue 15831 contains a number of places where a single signature
line was converted to multiple -- but in the docs and not the docstrings.
Those instances can also be examined for this issue.
The signature line for str() was not updated in
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
So (a) there is precedent for multiple signatures in docstrings
For the record, this is also true of 2.7:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/15fd0b4496e0/Objects/bytearrayobject.c#l2870
--
___
Python tracker
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
To make it easier to make progress on this docstring issue, I created issue
16036 to focus on int()'s reST documentation. (I have a comment on that
aspect.) This will allow the current issue to focus on the docstring aspect.
--
nosy: +chris.jerdonek
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
It may be worth rewrite int() and str() so that the first argument was
positional-only argument?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue14783
Ezio Melotti added the comment:
That would be backward incompatible, and there might be some valid (corner)
cases to pass it as a keyword. Since people are usually not supposed to use it
as a keyword arg, it doesn't matter much if the name is different if that makes
the docs more
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
+.. function:: int(number=0)
First argument is named x.
int(number=42)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
TypeError: 'number' is an invalid keyword argument for this function
int(x=42)
42
+ int(string,
Ezio Melotti added the comment:
First argument is named x.
Sometimes the doc uses better names to improve clarity when the argument is
not supposed to be called as keyword arg.
Here can be not only string, but bytes or bytearray.
The same applies here. string is also used in the error
Ezio Melotti added the comment:
The issues about weird signatures are being discussed on #15831.
However, this issue is about the docstring. Leave it incorrect?
Change it to the hard-to-parse one liner? Change it to a
two-line signature also?
For the docstring it's ok to use the double
Terry J. Reedy added the comment:
The large issue is documenting complex signatures that do not really fit in any
of the standard one-line patterns.
I was initially puzzled by Raymond describing the 3.3 line as 'confusing', but
putting on 'newbie glasses' I see now that correctly parsing
18 matches
Mail list logo
