docs December 2014

docs@python.org

39 participants
553 discussions

[issue23019] pyexpat.errors wrongly bound to message strings instead of message codes
by R. David Murray 10 Dec '14

10 Dec '14

R. David Murray added the comment: Actually, I'm going to reopen it as a doc issue. This should be explained in the 2.7 docs. ---------- assignee: -> docs@python components: +Documentation -Library (Lib) nosy: +docs@python status: closed -> open _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23019> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue12602] Missing cross-references in Doc/using
by Berker Peksag 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

Berker Peksag added the comment: Thanks for the patch, Éric. ---------- assignee: eric.araujo -> berker.peksag nosy: +berker.peksag resolution: -> fixed stage: commit review -> resolved status: open -> closed type: behavior -> enhancement _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12602> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue12602] Missing cross-references in Doc/using
by Roundup Robot 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 078dbecf2e2c by Berker Peksag in branch '2.7': Issue #12602: Add missing cross-references to runpy and using/cmdline docs. https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/078dbecf2e2c ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12602> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue12602] Missing cross-references in Doc/using
by Roundup Robot 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset bd14c4e5ef00 by Berker Peksag in branch '3.4': Issue #12602: Add missing cross-references to runpy and using/cmdline docs. https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/bd14c4e5ef00 New changeset 3a648b3d1694 by Berker Peksag in branch 'default': Issue #12602: Add missing cross-references to runpy and using/cmdline docs. https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3a648b3d1694 ---------- nosy: +python-dev _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12602> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue14787] pkgutil.walk_packages returns extra modules
by Pablo Aguiar 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

Changes by Pablo Aguiar <scorphus(a)gmail.com>: ---------- nosy: +scorphus _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14787> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue23017] string.printable.isprintable() returns False
by STINNER Victor 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

Changes by STINNER Victor <victor.stinner(a)gmail.com>: ---------- components: +Unicode nosy: +ezio.melotti, haypo _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23017> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue23017] string.printable.isprintable() returns False
by R. David Murray 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

R. David Murray added the comment: This is a bit of a conundrum. Our (string module) definition of printable is very clear, and it includes the other whitespace characters. We could document that this does not match the posix definition of printable. It also does not match the RFC 5822 definition of printable (for example), which does *not* include whitespace characters (not even space), but the posix definition is a more likely source of confusion. isprintable is a newer function than string.printable, and serves a different purpose. I suppose that when PEP 3138 was written and implemented the disconnect between the two definitions was not noticed. For backward compatibility reasons I suspect we are stuck with the discrepancy, but perhaps others will think it worth the pain of changing string.printable. I kind of doubt it, though. ---------- assignee: -> docs@python components: +Documentation nosy: +docs@python, r.david.murray _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23017> _______________________________________

1 0

Re: [docs] Improve the doc and indexing of adict.__missing__. (issue 23006)
by JohnJPosner＠verizon.net 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

The term "subdict" at line 1910 of datamodel.rst seems to be a shorthand way of saying "instance of a dict subclass", but that's kind of obscure. The term "subdict" does not appear anywhere else in this document. I suggest changing "subdict" to "dictionary". http://bugs.python.org/review/23006/

1 0

[issue22998] inspect.Signature and default arguments
by Walter Dörwald 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

Walter Dörwald added the comment: The updated code in the documentation still doesn't set the * and ** parameters. I would have preferred the following code: for param in sig.parameters.values(): if param.name not in ba.arguments: if param.kind is inspect.Parameter.VAR_POSITIONAL: default = () elif param.kind is inspect.Parameter.VAR_KEYWORD: default = {} else: default = param.default ba.arguments[param.name] = default ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue22998> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue23005] typos on heapq doc
by Raymond Hettinger 09 Dec '14

09 Dec '14

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: This change looks reasonable and correct. ---------- nosy: +rhettinger _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23005> _______________________________________

1 0

Jump to page:

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

docs December 2014