Mailman 3 September 2011 - docs

[issue13077] Unclear behavior of daemon threads on main thread exit
by etuardu 09 Mar '20

09 Mar '20

New submission from etuardu <edonan(a)gmail.com>: The definition of daemon thread in the current documentation reads: «A thread can be flagged as a "daemon thread". The significance of this flag is that the entire Python program exits when only daemon threads are left. [...]» (http://docs.python.org/library/threading.html#thread-objects) I think it's not very clear from this that daemon threads themselves terminate when the program (main thread plus other non-daemon threads) terminates. I think this have to be said more explicitly. I'd propose a change with something like: «A thread can be flagged as a "daemon thread", which means it will get shut down when the overall program terminates. The entire Python program exits when only daemon threads are left.» ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 144691 nosy: docs@python, etuardu priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Unclear behavior of daemon threads on main thread exit type: behavior versions: Python 2.6, Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2, Python 3.3, Python 3.4 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue13077> _______________________________________

5 7

[issue8824] Improve documentation of exec
by Terry J. Reedy 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

New submission from Terry J. Reedy <tjreedy(a)udel.edu>: This doc improvement suggestion is inspired by #991196 (and subsequent duplicates) and the current discussion on py-dev in the thread 'variable name resolution in exec is incorrect' (which is not a correct claim). I believe there is consensus that the doc for exec needs improving. My suggestion (which others may amend) is that the following paragraph (from the 3.x builtin functions exec entry) "In all cases, if the optional parts are omitted, the code is executed in the current scope. If only globals is provided, it must be a dictionary, which will be used for both the global and the local variables. If globals and locals are given, they are used for the global and local variables, respectively. If provided, locals can be any mapping object." have these two sentences added: "If only globals is provided or if onedict is provided as both globals and locals, the code is executed in a new top-level scope. If different objects are given as globals and locals, the code is executed as if it were in a class statement in a new top-level scope." ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 106552 nosy: docs@python, tjreedy priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Improve documentation of exec versions: Python 2.6, Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8824> _______________________________________

6 19

[issue9056] Adding additional level of bookmarks and section numbers in python pdf documents.
by pengyu.ut 18 Feb '20

18 Feb '20

New submission from pengyu.ut <pengyu.ut(a)gmail.com>: Current pdf version of python documents don't have bookmarks for sussubsection. For example, there is no bookmark for the following section in python_2.6.5_reference.pdf. Also the bookmarks don't have section numbers in them. I suggest to include the section numbers. Could these features be added in future release of python document. 3.4.1 Basic customization ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 108334 nosy: docs@python, pengyu.ut priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Adding additional level of bookmarks and section numbers in python pdf documents. versions: Python 2.6 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9056> _______________________________________

7 9

[issue9305] Don't use east/west of UTC in date/time documentation
by Alexander Belopolsky 14 Feb '20

14 Feb '20

New submission from Alexander Belopolsky <belopolsky(a)users.sourceforge.net>: I am opening this to supersede issue7229. See discussion following msg107148. In many places offsets representing the difference between local time and UTC are described as minutes or seconds east or west of UTC. This is not correct because UTC is not a place and minutes and seconds don't measure distance in this context. Replacing UTC with the Prime Meridian will not fix that because some regions in the western hemisphere use positive offsets from UTC. or example, Madrid is at 3° 42' West, but uses Central European Time which is UTC+1. I believe geographical references in the python documentation are irrelevant. What users are interested in is how to convert local time to UTC and UTC to local time rather than what is the sign of time.timezone in Madrid. I suggest the following wording for time.timezone description: time.timezone: The number of seconds one must add to the local time to arrive at UTC. Similarly, tzinfo.utcoffset() can be defined as "Returns timedelta one must add to UTC to arrive at local time." ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation keywords: easy messages: 110774 nosy: belopolsky, docs@python priority: normal severity: normal stage: needs patch status: open title: Don't use east/west of UTC in date/time documentation type: feature request versions: Python 3.2 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9305> _______________________________________

15 30

[issue11553] Docs for: import, packages, site.py, .pth files
by Graham Wideman 24 Jan '20

24 Jan '20

New submission from Graham Wideman <initcontact(a)grahamwideman.com>: The overall scope of this issue is that current Python documentation gives vague, sometimes incorrect, information about the set of Python features involved in modularizing functionality. This issue presents an obstacle to programmers making smooth transitions from a single module, to collections of modules and packages, then on to neatly organized common packages shared between projects. The problem affects documentation of: import and from...import statements ------------------------------------ The Language Reference is way too complicated for the mainstream case. Exactly what variants of arguments are possible, and what are their effects? What are the interactions with package features, such as whether or not modules have been explicitly imported into package __init_.py? sys.path --------- Typical consituents; range of alternatives for adding more dirs Module site.py -------------- Multiple serious errors in the file docstring, relating to site-packages directories and .pth files .pth files ----------- Incorrectly described in site.py, and then vaguely described in other docs. Are .pth files processed everywhere on sys.path? Can they be interative? (No to both). package structure ----------------- Details of package structure have evidently changed over Python versions. Current docs are unclear on points such as: -- is __init__.py needed on subpackage directories? -- the __all__ variable: Does it act generally to limit visibility of a module or package's attributes, or does pertain only to the 'from...import *' statement? Details: ========= Language Reference ------------------- http://docs.python.org/py3k/reference/simple_stmts.html#the-import-statement The description of the import statement is extensive, but dauntingly complicated for the reader trying to understand the mainstream case of simply importing modules or packages that are on sys.path. This is because the algorithm for finding modules tries numerous esoteric strategies before falling back on the plain-old-file-system method. (Even now that I have a good understanding of the plain-old-file variations of import, I reread this and find it hard to comprehend, and disorganized and incomplete in presenting the available variations of the statement.) Grammar issue: the grammar shown for the import statement shows: relative_module ::= "."* module | "."+ ... which implies that relative module could have zero leading dots. I believe an actual relative path is required to have at least one dot (PEP 328). Evidently, in this grammar, 'relative_module' really means "relative or absolute path to module or package", so it would be quite helpful to change to: relative_path ::= "."+ module | "."+ from_path ::= (relative_path | module) etc. (Really 'module' is not quite right here either since it's used to mean module-or-package.) site.py: -------- Module site.py implements the site-package related features. The docstring has multiple problems with consequences in other docs. 1. Does not mention user-specific site-package directories (implemented by addusersitepackages() ) 2. Seriously misleading discussion of .pth files. In the docstring the example shows using pth files, called "package configuration files" in their comments, to point to actual package directories bar and foo located within the site-packages directory. This is an absolutely incorrect use of pth files: If foo and bar are packages in .../site-packages/, they do not need to be pointed to, they are already on sys.path. If the package dirs ARE pointed to by foo.pth and bar.pth, the modules inside them will be exposed directly to sys.path, possibly precipitating name collisions. Further, programmers following this example will create packages in which import statements will appear to magically perform relative imports without leading dots, leading to confusion over how the import statement is supposed to work. It may be that this discussion is held over from a time when "package" perhaps meant "Just a Bunch of Files in a Directory"? 3. The docstring (or other docs) should make clear that .pth files are ONLY processed within site-package directories (ie: only by site.py). 4. Bug: Minor: In addsitepackages(), the library directory for Windows (the else clause) is shown as lower-case 'lib' instead of 'Lib'. This has some possibility of causing problems when running from a case-sensitive server. In any case, if read as documentation it is misleading. Tutorial --------- 6. Modules: http://docs.python.org/py3k/tutorial/modules.html 1. Discussion (6.1.2. The Module Search Path) is good as far as it goes, but it doesn't mention the site-package directories. 2. Section 6.4. Packages: Discussion of __init__.py does describe the purpose of these files. However, the discussion in relation to subpackages should mention that for subdirectories to be accessible they must in fact be made into subpackages. I.e.: there is not form of import that can reach into a subdir of a package *unless* it's flagged as a subpackage using __init__.py. I have read elsewhere that there were some versions of Python where __init__.py was not needed on subdirs within a package. 3. Section 6.4. Packages: The discussion of __all__ should note that it works *only* in conjunction with 'from...import *', and is not a general mechanism for limiting visibility of attributes. Attributes not in the __all__ list are still accessible using other forms of import. 4. Section 6.4. Packages: "Note that when using from package import item" and following. Draws a contrast between: from package import item vs import item.subitem.subsubitem However, this muddles the roles of the arguments to import, and notably uses 'item' in two different ways. Instead the discussion can be presented as a comparison of: from PackageOrModule import ModuleOrAttribute vs import PackageOrModule ... where it can be pointed out that the PackageOrModule 'dotted path' argument follows the *same* rules in both cases (except for relative paths). The *salient* contrast is that only the 'from' form has a *second* argument which can be an attribute. 5. Footnote: (somewhat unrelated, but...) says "the execution of a module-level function enters the function name in the module’s global symbol table." This is surely incorrect -- it is the execution of the function's *def* that enters the function name in the symbol table. Standard Library Reference --------------------------- 1) 27.13. site — Site-specific configuration hook http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/site.html This is documentation for site.py, and is a page that might well come up in a search for '.pth'. 1a) This page may simply be importing the docstring from site.py? In any case it repeats the ommissions and errors noted above for site.py. 2) 27.1. sys — System-specific parameters and functions http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/sys.html Documentation for sys.path. OK as far as it goes, but: 2a) Could helpfully point to a discussion of the typical items to be found in sys.path under normal circumstances 2b) It does point to the site.py module documentation as the authoritative info on using .pth files (which is seriously flawed as noted above). 3) 29.3. pkgutil — Package extension utility. http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/pkgutil.html 3a) The info for pkgutil.extend_path() describes how .pkg files are similar to .pth files, and their entries should point to package directories. As I noted above, so far as I can see, package directories should be within a directory on sys,path, but should not themselves be included in the path, otherwise it breaks their capability to work properly as packages. 'Installing Python Modules' document: -------------------------------------- http://docs.python.org/py3k/install/index.html This may well be consulted for info on how to organize source files, though it is basically the doc for Distutils. 1. Main problem is that it seems quite out-of-date; "Windows has no concept of a user’s home directory, " and so on. 2. 'How installation works' > table. For Windows suggests 'prefix' (default: C:\Python) as an installation directory. This is indeed one of the possible 'site-package' directories, but surely it is deprecated in favor of C:\Python\Lib\site-packages, which this section does not mention. 3. Does not mention user-specific site-package directories. 4. 'Modifying Python's Search Path' > "The most convenient way is to add a path configuration file to a directory that’s already on Python’s path". This is incorrect. (a) .pth files are only processed in site-package directories. (b) Clarifying an additional point of confusion -- as a consequence of (a) .pth files cannot be chained. 5. Points to docs for site.py... with it's flaws noted above. PEP 302 New Import Hooks ------------------------ Given the vagueness elsewhere in the docs, one might go hunting for ground truth in the PEPs. One must allow for PEPs having been superceeded, but nonetheless, outdated info that is now wrong is an additional stumbling block for learners. 1. Section 'Specification part 1: The importer Protocol'. Discussion says that in an import statement, a path (with no leading '.') is first treated as relative. This is now incorrect (as spelled out in PEP 328.) It would be helpful to insert a note in PEP 302 pointing out that the later revision invalidates this passage. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 130964 nosy: docs@python, gwideman priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Docs for: import, packages, site.py, .pth files type: behavior versions: Python 3.1, Python 3.2, Python 3.3 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11553> _______________________________________

6 14

[issue9938] Documentation for argparse interactive use
by Jay T 12 Sep '19

12 Sep '19

New submission from Jay T <jaytula(a)gmail.com>: I want to create a custom interactive shell where I continually do parse_args. Like the following: parser = argparse.ArgumentParser() command = raw_input() while(True): args = parser.parse_args(shlex.split(command)) # Do some magic stuff command = raw_input() The problem is that if I give it invalid input, it errors and exits with a help message. I learned from argparse-users group that you can override the exit method like the following: class MyParser(ArgumentParser): def exit(self, status=0, message=None): # do whatever you want here I would be nice to have this usage documented perhaps along with best practices for doing help messages in this scenario. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 117287 nosy: docs@python, jayt priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Documentation for argparse interactive use type: feature request versions: Python 2.7 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9938> _______________________________________

16 28

[issue12077] Harmonizing descriptor protocol documentation
by Davide Rizzo 29 Aug '19

29 Aug '19

New submission from Davide Rizzo <sorcio(a)gmail.com>: There are three sources of information for the descriptor protocol: - Data model reference (Doc/reference/datamodel.rst) - Descriptor HowTo guide (Doc/howto/descriptor.rst) - PEP 252 A developer who already knows descriptor tipically reads the first one: object.__get__(self, instance, owner) "... owner is always the owner class ..." Reading a bit further there are the ways a descriptor can be called, and the "direct call" is x.__get__(a). That is, without the third argument (owner) specified. The how-to definition is slightly different: descr.__get__(self, obj, type=None) --> value Here the arguments have different names ("type" shadowing the type bultin) and it seems to be implied that the third argument is optional. The ClassMethod example at the end of the document seems to confirm this: def __get__(self, obj, klass=None): (though another example doesn't). And the method contains an explicit check on klass being None. Also it could be confusing that through the examples in the same document many different names are used for the same argument (type, objtype, klass), and all different than the name used in the reference. Lastly the PEP is more explicit: __get__(): a function callable with one or two arguments. [...] When X is None, the optional second argument, T, should be meta-object. [...] When both X and T are specified ... One more quirk: the reference explains the distinction between data and non-data descriptors, though says nothing about __set__ raising AttributeError for read-only data descriptors. My proposal: - use the same names for __get__ arguments throughout the documentation (both the reference and the tutorial), e.g. __get__(self, instance, owner) - decide whether the third argument should be optional, or state the common usage in the reference, and fix accordingly the examples in the howto - explain data, non-data and read-only descriptors in the __set__ reference, or more simply, how the defintion of __set__ affects these things. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 135974 nosy: davide.rizzo, docs@python priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Harmonizing descriptor protocol documentation versions: Python 2.7, Python 3.2, Python 3.3 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12077> _______________________________________

9 17

[issue12634] Random Remarks in class documentation
by Ashutosh Swain 23 Aug '19

23 Aug '19

New submission from Ashutosh Swain <ats.engg(a)gmail.com>: URL: http://docs.python.org/tutorial/classes.html section: 9.4 Random Remarks The first sentense is bit confusing: "Data attributes override method attributes with the same name" Is it possible to change the sentense something like this: "Data attributes set through instance override method attributes with the same name" ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 141073 nosy: ats.engg, docs@python priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Random Remarks in class documentation type: feature request versions: Python 2.7 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12634> _______________________________________

9 18

[issue11165] Document PyEval_Call* functions
by Nick Coghlan 08 Aug '19

08 Aug '19

New submission from Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>: There are currently undocumented PyEval_Call* equivalents to a number of the PyObject_Call* functions. Since there are resources out there on the web that direct people to use the currently undocumented PyEval functions, it would be good to document those properly, and recommend people typically use the PyObject_Call* variants instead (as the latter include all the stack and interpreter state integrity protection code, while the PyEval variants assume that has all already been handled). ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation keywords: easy messages: 128248 nosy: docs@python, ncoghlan priority: normal severity: normal stage: needs patch status: open title: Document PyEval_Call* functions versions: Python 2.7, Python 3.2, Python 3.3 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11165> _______________________________________

9 12

[issue12217] Cross-link docs for faulthandler, traceback and pdb
by Éric Araujo 13 Jul '19

13 Jul '19

New submission from Éric Araujo <merwok(a)netwok.org>: haypo suggested linking between traceback.print_tb and faulthandler.dump_traceback(). See also links between pdb and faulthandler could also be nice, if they explain briefly how the modules differ. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation keywords: easy messages: 137298 nosy: docs@python, eric.araujo, haypo priority: normal severity: normal stage: needs patch status: open title: Cross-link docs for faulthandler, traceback and pdb versions: Python 3.3 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12217> _______________________________________

4 5