New submission from Julien Palard firstname.lastname@example.org:
As reported by Graham Ewart on docs@,
s * n or n * s | equivalent to adding s to itself n times
is badly worded. In fact it's more like n-1 times, but yet it's not adding s to itself.
I'd go for "n times the s sequence" or "n copies of the s sequence" instead, which both avoid the "n-1" and the "to itself" parts.
---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation keywords: easy messages: 377958 nosy: docs@python, mdk priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Wording of s * n in Common Sequence Operations is not optimal
Chavdar Yotov email@example.com added the comment:
Looks like a fitting first contribution. Working on a PR now :-)
---------- nosy: +chavdar
Change by Chavdar Yotov firstname.lastname@example.org:
---------- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +21566 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/22570
Julien Palard email@example.com added the comment:
New changeset 0269ce87c9347542c54a653dd78b9f60bb9fa822 by Chavdar Yotov in branch 'master': bpo-41933: Clarify wording for s * n in Common Sequence Operations (GH-22570) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/0269ce87c9347542c54a653dd78b9f60bb9...
Change by Julien Palard firstname.lastname@example.org:
---------- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed