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

[chris.jerdonek at gmail.com]

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
On 2012/11/26 22:04:35, ezio.melotti wrote:
> s/in the calling syntax/in a function call/?
> For consistency with the next definition you should use "and/or" here
too.

"and/or" doesn't fit here because "argument" is singular.  You would
never have an argument that is both preceded by an identifier and
occurring as a value.  The situation is different below because it
discusses multiple positional arguments -- some of which can appear at
the beginning and others in the iterable.  I used plural arguments below
because I did not want to give the impression that a positional argument
can occur only at the very beginning.  Multiple positional arguments can
appear at the beginning of the argument list.

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
On 2012/11/26 22:04:35, ezio.melotti wrote:
> 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.

I will just link them to "argument" so the reader can still know they
are separately defined.

http://bugs.python.org/review/15990/diff/6665/Doc/glossary.rst#newcode605
Doc/glossary.rst:605: :ref:`function` section, and :pep:`362`.
On 2012/11/26 22:04:35, ezio.melotti wrote:
> It occurred to me that there's another distinction that can be made:
required vs
> optional.  Should we add this too?

I mentioned them but do not feel more detail should be added here. 
Perhaps a question could be added to the FAQ on how to specify that
arguments be optional vs. required.  But that should be done as part of
a different issue.

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