Mailman 3 May 2020 - docs

[issue38580] select()'s documentation claims only sequences are accepted, but it allows all iterables
by Tal Einat 25 May '20

25 May '20

Tal Einat <taleinat+python(a)gmail.com> added the comment: Nothing further is required; I've merged the PR. Thanks! ---------- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed versions: +Python 3.10 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue38580> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue38580] select()'s documentation claims only sequences are accepted, but it allows all iterables
by miss-islington 25 May '20

25 May '20

Change by miss-islington <mariatta.wijaya+miss-islington(a)gmail.com>: ---------- keywords: +patch nosy: +miss-islington nosy_count: 8.0 -> 9.0 pull_requests: +19635 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/20372 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue38580> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue38580] select()'s documentation claims only sequences are accepted, but it allows all iterables
by Tal Einat 25 May '20

25 May '20

Tal Einat <taleinat+python(a)gmail.com> added the comment: New changeset 372ee27d4958302dac7ad6a8711f6fd04771b2e6 by Jakub Stasiak in branch 'master': bpo-38580: Document that select() accepts iterables, not just sequences (GH-16832) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/372ee27d4958302dac7ad6a8711f6fd047… ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue38580> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue38580] select()'s documentation claims only sequences are accepted, but it allows all iterables
by Ido Michael 25 May '20

25 May '20

Ido Michael <michael.ido(a)gmail.com> added the comment: Hey Tal, I see this issue is pending and pretty much done, what else there's to fix here? ---------- nosy: +Ido Michael _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue38580> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue17050] argparse.REMAINDER doesn't work as first argument
by Raymond Hettinger 24 May '20

24 May '20

Change by Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger(a)gmail.com>: ---------- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue17050> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue17050] argparse.REMAINDER doesn't work as first argument
by Raymond Hettinger 24 May '20

24 May '20

Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger(a)gmail.com> added the comment: New changeset 46c1b9c7b595cd9244020ff74ff9cb11bec9870c by Miss Islington (bot) in branch '3.9': bpo-17050: Remove documentation on argparse.REMAINDER (GH-18661) (GH-20363) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/46c1b9c7b595cd9244020ff74ff9cb11be… ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue17050> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue40344] Programming FAQ about "What is the most efficient way to concatenate many strings together?" -- Improving the example
by Dominik V. 24 May '20

24 May '20

New submission from Dominik V. <dominik.vilsmeier1123(a)gmail.com>: The section mentions the usage of `str.join` and contains the following example: chunks = [] for s in my_strings: chunks.append(s) result = ''.join(chunks) Since `join` accepts any iterable the creation of the `chunks` list in a for loop is superfluous. If people just copy & paste from this FAQ they'll even end up with less performant code. The example could be improved by providing an example list such as: strings = ['spam', 'ham', 'eggs'] meal = ', '.join(strings) Arguably this isn't a particularly long list of strings, so one more example could be added using e.g. `range(100)`: numbers = ','.join(str(x) for x in range(100)) This also emphasizes the fact that `join` takes any iterable rather than just lists. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 366887 nosy: Dominik V., docs@python priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Programming FAQ about "What is the most efficient way to concatenate many strings together?" -- Improving the example type: enhancement versions: Python 3.8, Python 3.9 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue40344> _______________________________________

4 17

[issue17050] argparse.REMAINDER doesn't work as first argument
by miss-islington 24 May '20

24 May '20

Change by miss-islington <mariatta.wijaya+miss-islington(a)gmail.com>: ---------- pull_requests: +19627 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/20363 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue17050> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue17050] argparse.REMAINDER doesn't work as first argument
by miss-islington 24 May '20

24 May '20

miss-islington <mariatta.wijaya+miss-islington(a)gmail.com> added the comment: New changeset 59f5022b5d3e5fcc60ac61cc256b627decf8ee68 by Albert in branch 'master': bpo-17050: Remove documentation on argparse.REMAINDER (GH-18661) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/59f5022b5d3e5fcc60ac61cc256b627dec… ---------- nosy: +miss-islington _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue17050> _______________________________________

1 0

[issue21724] resetwarnings doesn't reset warnings registry
by Julian Berman 24 May '20

24 May '20

Julian Berman <Julian+Python.org(a)GrayVines.com> added the comment: Just ran into this myself -- not sure what the intended fix is (hopefully it's "add a function that restores the warnings configuration to its defaults?" Changing resetwarnings seems likely to be not doable I assume.) But in the meanwhile, is a doc patch acceptable? The current documentation for resetwarnings is really deceptive, and makes it look like it does what @pitrou (and I) thought it did: > Reset the warnings filter. This discards the effect of all previous calls to filterwarnings(), including that of the -W command line options and calls to simplefilter(). Compare to the docstring of the function (and to what it actually does): > """Clear the list of warning filters, so that no filters are active.""" But there are still too many implementation details of the warnings module leaking through here -- for end users it's just "restore the warnings configuration to its defaults" (what it looks like resetwarnings should do) or "unfilter all warnings, even beyond the filters configured by default" (what it actually does). Is at least making the docs reflect the latter a reasonable patch to submit, to start, while what to do about the former is thought about? ---------- assignee: -> docs@python components: +Documentation nosy: +Julian, docs@python versions: +Python 3.10, Python 3.6, Python 3.7, Python 3.8, Python 3.9 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report(a)bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue21724> _______________________________________

1 0