[docs] solidify argument/parameter terminology (issue 15990)

ezio.melotti at gmail.com ezio.melotti at gmail.com
Mon Nov 26 22:04:35 CET 2012


http://bugs.python.org/review/15990/diff/6665/Doc/glossary.rst
File Doc/glossary.rst (right):

http://bugs.python.org/review/15990/diff/6665/Doc/glossary.rst#newcode47
Doc/glossary.rst:47: ``name=``) in the calling syntax or passed as a
value in a dictionary
s/in the calling syntax/in a function call/?
For consistency with the next definition you should use "and/or" here
too.

http://bugs.python.org/review/15990/diff/6665/Doc/glossary.rst#newcode68
Doc/glossary.rst:68: See also the :term:`parameter` glossary entry and
:pep:`362`.
This should link to the FAQ

http://bugs.python.org/review/15990/diff/6665/Doc/glossary.rst#newcode571
Doc/glossary.rst:571: :term:`keyword argument`.  This is the default
kind of parameter, for
I wouldn't link to positional/keyowrd arguments now that they are dummy.
 If linking to argument is too "vague" you /could/ add references before
the two definitions of argument.

http://bugs.python.org/review/15990/diff/6665/Doc/glossary.rst#newcode583
Doc/glossary.rst:583: bare ``*`` before them in the parameter list of
the function
This might lead the reader to think that every keyword-only arg requires
its own *.  The example could specify kw-only args.

http://bugs.python.org/review/15990/diff/6665/Doc/glossary.rst#newcode605
Doc/glossary.rst:605: :ref:`function` section, and :pep:`362`.
It occurred to me that there's another distinction that can be made:
required vs optional.  Should we add this too?

http://bugs.python.org/review/15990/


More information about the docs mailing list