Mailman 3 December 2016 - docs

[issue28089] Document TCP_NODELAY by default
by Ned Deily Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

New submission from Ned Deily: This is marked as a release blocker but, since it's just a doc change, I'm not going to hold 3.6.0 for it. It would be nice to get it in, though. ---------- priority: release blocker -> deferred blocker _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28089> _______________________________________

6 14

Document PyObject_CallFunction() special case more explicitly (issue 28977)
by storchaka+cpython＠gmail.com Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

https://bugs.python.org/review/28977/diff/19473/Doc/c-api/object.rst File Doc/c-api/object.rst (right): https://bugs.python.org/review/28977/diff/19473/Doc/c-api/object.rst#newcod… Doc/c-api/object.rst:279: there is a single argument. PyObject_CallFunctionObjArgs looks better alternative to me. And PyObject_CallObject is better alternative when you need to unpack a tuple. Since "O" is exceptional case and its behavior is likely unexpected, and there are good alternatives, maybe format this note with "note" or "warning" directives? https://bugs.python.org/review/28977/

1 0

[issue28794] inspect.isasyncgen and inspect.isasyncgenfunction aren't documented
by Nathaniel Smith Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

New submission from Nathaniel Smith: The string "isasync" does not appear to occur on this page: https://docs.python.org/3.6/library/inspect.html ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 281662 nosy: docs@python, njs, yselivanov priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: inspect.isasyncgen and inspect.isasyncgenfunction aren't documented versions: Python 3.6, Python 3.7 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28794> _______________________________________

4 4

[issue28976] incorrect description that dose not conform to the actual behavior
by woo yoo Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

New submission from woo yoo: The paragraph that describes the precedence of semicolon encounters a minor error, which said : "Also note that the semicolon binds tighter than the colon in this context, so that in the following example, either all or none of the print() calls are executed: if x < y < z: print(x); print(y); print(z)" However,the series of print function calls could execute partly if the previous ones are legal. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 283232 nosy: docs@python, woo yoo priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: incorrect description that dose not conform to the actual behavior versions: Python 3.5 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28976> _______________________________________

3 19

[issue28944] A lack of comma within EBNF rule of keywords_arguments
by woo yoo Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

New submission from woo yoo: This is the documented rule, which lacks a comma within the last line. keywords_arguments ::= (keyword_item | "**" expression) ("," keyword_item | "**" expression)* The correct form should be: keywords_arguments ::= (keyword_item | "**" expression) ("," keyword_item |",""**" expression)* The original documentation is https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#calls ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 282987 nosy: docs@python, woo yoo priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: A lack of comma within EBNF rule of keywords_arguments versions: Python 3.5 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28944> _______________________________________

4 5

missed url before open
by Osama Essam Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Hello, i think there is url was missed before open at second code block in https://docs.python.org/3.1/howto/urllib2.html#data Very nice work, keep it up. Regards, Osama.

1 0

[issue28973] The fact that multiprocess.Queue uses serialization should be documented.
by Davin Potts Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Davin Potts added the comment: All communication between processes in multiprocessing has consistently used pickle to serialize the data being communicated (this includes what is described in the "Shared memory" section of the docs). The documentation has not done a great job of making this clear, instead only describing the requirement that data be pickleable in select places. For example, in the section on Queues: Note: When an object is put on a queue, the object is pickled and a background thread later flushes the pickled data to an underlying pipe. Though it only applies to 3.6+, issue28053 still needs its own documentation improvement to make clear that the mechanism for communicating data defaults to serialization by pickle but that this can be replaced by alternatives. I agree that the documentation around the use of pickle in multiprocessing deserves improvement. ---------- nosy: +davin stage: -> needs patch type: behavior -> enhancement versions: +Python 3.6, Python 3.7 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28973> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue28973] The fact that multiprocess.Queue uses serialization should be documented.
by R. David Murray Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

R. David Murray added the comment: Yeah, that's why I said "in the general case". Making it clear in the overview seems reasonable to me. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28973> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue28973] The fact that multiprocess.Queue uses serialization should be documented.
by Bernhard10 Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Bernhard10 added the comment: My first thought was that Queue was implemented using shared memory. I guess from the fact that the "Shared memory" section is separate in the multiprocessing documentation I should have known better, though. So I guess some clarification in the documentation would be helpful. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28973> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue28973] The fact that multiprocess.Queue uses serialization should be documented.
by R. David Murray Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

R. David Murray added the comment: That fact that this is so is implicit in the name multi*process*ing and the documented restrictions of the id function. That is, it is the purpose of the module is to manage computation across multiple processes. Since different processes have distinct memory spaces, you cannot depend on object identity between processes, by the definition of object identity (it is constant only for the lifetime of the object in memory, and the different processes have different memory spaces, therefore the object id may be different in the different processes). By construction this applies also to any multiprocessing mechanism that is used to transmit objects, even if the transmission turns out to be to the same process in a particular case. You can't *depend* on the id in that case, because the transmission mechanism must be free to change the object identity in order to work in the general case. Should we document this explicitly? Perhaps so. Maybe in the multiprocessing introduction? ---------- nosy: +r.david.murray _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28973> _______________________________________

1 0