[issue45393] help() on operator precedence has confusing entries "avait" "x" and "not" "x"
New submission from Max <mh+bugs.python.org@dsi972.fr>: Nobody seems to have noticed this AFAICS: If you type, e.g., help('+') to get help on operator precedence, the fist column gives a lit of operators for each row corresponding to a given precedence. However, the row for "not" (and similar for "await"), has the entry "not" "x" That looks as if there were two operators, "not" and "x". But the letter x is just an argument to the operator, so it should be: "not x" exactly as for "+x" and "-x" and "~x" and "x[index]" and "x.attribute", where also x is not part of the operator but an argument. On the corresponding web page https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#operator-summary it is displayed correctly, there are no quotes. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 403321 nosy: MFH, docs@python priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: help() on operator precedence has confusing entries "avait" "x" and "not" "x" type: enhancement versions: Python 3.10, Python 3.11, Python 3.6, Python 3.7, Python 3.8, Python 3.9 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45393> _______________________________________
Change by Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka+cpython@gmail.com>: ---------- title: help() on operator precedence has confusing entries "avait" "x" and "not" "x" -> help() on operator precedence has confusing entries "await" "x" and "not" "x" versions: -Python 3.6, Python 3.7, Python 3.8 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45393> _______________________________________
Max <mh+bugs.python.org@dsi972.fr> added the comment: Thanks for fixing the typo, didn't knnow how to do that when I spotted it (I'm new to this). You also removed Python version 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, however, I just tested on pythonanywhere,
sys.version '3.7.0 (default, Aug 22 2018, 20:50:05) \n[GCC 5.4.0 20160609]' So I can confirm that the bug *is* there on 3.7 (so I put this back in the list - unless it was removed in a later 3.7.x (to you mean that?) and put back in later versions...?) It is also on the Python 3.9.7 I'm running on my laptop, so I'd greatly be surprised if it were not present on the other two versions you also removed.
---------- versions: +Python 3.7, Python 3.8 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45393> _______________________________________
Vedran Čačić <vedgar@gmail.com> added the comment: I guess those old versions were removed because they are "frozen", that is, not receiving doc fixes anymore. ---------- nosy: +veky _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45393> _______________________________________
Zachary Ware <zachary.ware@gmail.com> added the comment: Correct; 3.7 and 3.8 are both in security-fix-only maintenance mode; their documentation is no longer updated unless a security-related fix causes a significant change in behavior that needs to be documented. As far as fixing this issue, we have a few options. The cause is that the source for these rows looks like ':keyword:`await` ``x``', which basically produces two inline code blocks with a non-code space between, which the pydoc-topics renderer renders as two separately quoted words. Option 1: Replace ':keyword:`await` ``x``' with `:keyword:`await x <await>`. This keeps the link to the `await` anchor, but extends it across the ' x' bit. The pydoc rendering is '"await x"'. Option 2: Replace ':keyword:`await` ``x``' with '``await x``. This also gives the pydoc rendering of '"await x"', but loses the link to the `await` anchor, which I would rather not do. Option 3: As option 2, but also replace 'Await' in the description column with a link to the `await` anchor. This breaks from how other keywords in the table are linked. Option 4: Adjust the pydoc-topics renderer to smush together consecutive inline code blocks. This might cause some issues elsewhere. ---------- nosy: +zach.ware versions: -Python 3.7, Python 3.8 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45393> _______________________________________
Max <mh+bugs.python.org@dsi972.fr> added the comment: option 1 looks most attractive to me (and will also look most attractive in the rendering, IMHO -- certainly better than "await" "x", in any case). P.S.: OK, thanks for explanations concerning 3.6 - 3.8. I do understand that it won't be fixed for these versions (not certain why not if possible at no cost), but I do not understand why these labels must be removed. The bug does exist but should simply be considered as "nofix" for these versions (or not), given that it's not in the "security" category. The fact that it won't be fixed, for whatever reason, should not mean that it should not be listed as existing, there. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45393> _______________________________________
Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka+cpython@gmail.com> added the comment: In past we could backport some simple documentation fixes to security-only branches. But currently only the release manager of the corresponded version has permission to commit to these branches, and we do not want to disturb them for such minor cause. I concur with analysis of Zachary. All options look good to me. ---------- nosy: +serhiy.storchaka _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45393> _______________________________________
Change by Zackery Spytz <zspytz@gmail.com>: ---------- keywords: +patch nosy: +ZackerySpytz nosy_count: 5.0 -> 6.0 pull_requests: +29415 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/31246 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45393> _______________________________________
Zackery Spytz <zspytz@gmail.com> added the comment: I have created a patch for this issue. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45393> _______________________________________
participants (5)
-
Max -
Serhiy Storchaka
-
Vedran Čačić
-
Zachary Ware
-
Zackery Spytz