Mark Lawrence added the comment:
Can this be closed given msg169859 and msg169861?
--
nosy: +BreamoreBoy
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15476
___
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
That's fine by me. I guess what's more important to me is that code object
have a central, linkable definition *somewhere* (and not necessarily that this
somewhere be a glossary entry). That way references to code object in the docs
can link to a definition
Chris Jerdonek added the comment:
I am starting work on this in the next couple days.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue15476
___
Raymond Hettinger added the comment:
I disagree that this should be added. The glossary is not intended to be a
dictionary of every possible concept. Ideally, it should remain short enough
so that it can be read in a single sitting. Making the docs fatter doesn't
make them better.
New submission from Chris Jerdonek chris.jerdo...@gmail.com:
This issue is to add code object to the documentation glossary, as discussed
in issue 15457 regarding the documentation around generators.
This can be a minimal entry that links to the details here, for example--
