Mailman 3 May 2016 - docs

Regex documentation bug
by Neta Oren May 20, 2016

May 20, 2016

Hi, I was reading your documentation page about regex, and noticed you had a mistake. The specific page is 'Regular Expression HOWTO -- Python 2.7.11 documentation'. It is located in the address: https://docs.python.org/2/howto/regex.html The mistake is at the 'Performing Matches' section. The mistake is: You wrote that the start() and end() methods will retnot end the starting and ending indices of the match. However in the example you provided the end index is in fact the length of the match, and not the ending index (that would be length - 1). If the index starts at 0 and ends at 11 then that means there are 12 characters, however in your examples it was not as such. This can create array out of bounds exceptions and other exceptions as well. This error is repeated in this section several times. For your attention, Neta

2 1

License on Python documentation textx
by Петр Калинин May 20, 2016

May 20, 2016

Hello, What is the license for Python documentation found at https://docs.python.org/ ? I've tried to find any information about it on the site itself, but did not succeed in it. The footer of the site gives a link to https://docs.python.org/3/copyright.html , which simply lists several copyrights and "All rights reserved"s and contains link to https://docs.python.org/3/license.html#history-and-license . However, the latter specified licenses for Python only, not for documentation. The page https://docs.python.org/3/about.html also does not list eny explicit license. Is the licenses listed at https://docs.python.org/3/license.html#history-and-license apply to Python documentation found at https://docs.python.org/ too? If not, then what is the exact license for the documentation? Background: I'm writing a Telegram bot that will be able to provide python reference (for example, return re.match reference when user sends "re.match"), for this I parse docs.python.org. I definitely need and want to know the license of the texts to know whether this is a legitimate use and how should I properly give attribution. -- Petr Kalinin, petr(a)kalinin.nnov.ru

2 1

[issue27060] Documentation of assertItemsEqual in unittest is VERY misleading in 2.7
by Georg Brandl May 19, 2016

May 19, 2016

Changes by Georg Brandl <georg(a)python.org>: ---------- nosy: +michael.foord _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27060> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue17866] TestCase.assertItemsEqual exists in 2.7, not in 3.3
by Vitaly May 19, 2016

May 19, 2016

Vitaly added the comment: I opened http://bugs.python.org/issue27060 regarding the erroneous documentation of assertItemsEqual in python 2.7. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue17866> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue27060] Documentation of assertItemsEqual in unittest is VERY misleading in 2.7
by Vitaly May 19, 2016

May 19, 2016

Changes by Vitaly <vitaly.krugl.numenta(a)gmail.com>: ---------- assignee: -> docs@python components: +Documentation nosy: +docs@python _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27060> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue17866] TestCase.assertItemsEqual exists in 2.7, not in 3.3
by Vitaly May 19, 2016

May 19, 2016

Vitaly added the comment: Python 2.7 documentation is VERY misleading about the functionality of assertItemsEqual. It actually claims to compare not only the counts, but the actual sorted elements themselves. This documentation mislead my group to use this method for comparing the elements. See https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/d9921cb6e3cd/Doc/library/unittest.rst: .. method:: assertItemsEqual(actual, expected, msg=None) Test that sequence *expected* contains the same elements as *actual*, regardless of their order. When they don't, an error message listing the differences between the sequences will be generated. Duplicate elements are *not* ignored when comparing *actual* and *expected*. It verifies if each element has the same count in both sequences. It is the equivalent of ``assertEqual(sorted(expected), sorted(actual))`` but it works with sequences of unhashable objects as well. ---------- nosy: +vitaly _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue17866> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue20699] Document that binary IO classes work with bytes-likes objects
by Serhiy Storchaka May 19, 2016

May 19, 2016

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Added few minor comments on Rietveld. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue20699> _______________________________________

1 0

Re: [docs] Behavior of ZipFile with file-like object and BufferedWriter. (issue 20699)
by storchaka＠gmail.com May 19, 2016

May 19, 2016

http://bugs.python.org/review/20699/diff/16966/Doc/library/io.rst File Doc/library/io.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/20699/diff/16966/Doc/library/io.rst#newcode597 Doc/library/io.rst:597: The argument *initial_bytes* is a :term:`bytes-like object` that Maybe "The optional argument"? http://bugs.python.org/review/20699/diff/16966/Lib/_pyio.py File Lib/_pyio.py (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/20699/diff/16966/Lib/_pyio.py#newcode678 Lib/_pyio.py:678: """Read bytes into buffer *b*, using at most one system call Should this be unified with readinto()? http://bugs.python.org/review/20699/diff/16966/Lib/test/test_io.py File Lib/test/test_io.py (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/20699/diff/16966/Lib/test/test_io.py#newcode3… Lib/test/test_io.py:320: self.assertEqual(memoryview(data).tobytes(), b" worl") Maybe just "bytes(data)"? http://bugs.python.org/review/20699/diff/16966/Lib/test/test_io.py#newcode6… Lib/test/test_io.py:667: def make_file_writer(): Current testing code is 16 lines long, but if expand loop and inline factories it would 15 lines long (and look more clear to me). Yet more short and clear writing is: def check(f): with f: self.assertEqual(f.write(a), n) f.writelines((a,)) check(self.BytesIO()) check(self.FileIO(support.TESTFN, "w")) ... Only 9 lines! http://bugs.python.org/review/20699/

1 0

[issue27037] Universal newline support for zipFile.ZipExtFile.read() is not working (deprecated?), and the missing functionality not documented
by Serhiy Storchaka May 19, 2016

May 19, 2016

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: The support of the "U" mode will be removed in 3.6 (issue27029). ---------- nosy: +serhiy.storchaka _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27037> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue27050] Demote run() below the high level APIs in subprocess docs
by Nick Coghlan May 19, 2016

May 19, 2016

Nick Coghlan added the comment: As long as I'm refactoring these docs, I may also take a look at adding some notes about text vs binary handling, since that's still problematic as described in http://bugs.python.org/issue6135 The default behaviour is binary pipes, and setting "universal_newlines=True" switches to UTF-8 encoded text pipes, but anything else involves using binary pipes with separate encoding and decoding steps. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27050> _______________________________________

1 0