[Python-Dev] cpython (3.2): don't mention implementation detail

[Benjamin Peterson]

2011/12/20 Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:42:43 +0100
> benjamin.peterson <python-checkins at python.org> wrote:
>> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/d85efd73b0e1
>> changeset:   74088:d85efd73b0e1
>> branch:      3.2
>> parent:      74082:71e5a083f9b1
>> user:        Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org>
>> date:        Mon Dec 19 16:41:11 2011 -0500
>> summary:
>>   don't mention implementation detail
>>
>> files:
>>   Doc/library/operator.rst |  10 +++++-----
>>   1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/Doc/library/operator.rst b/Doc/library/operator.rst
>> --- a/Doc/library/operator.rst
>> +++ b/Doc/library/operator.rst
>> @@ -12,11 +12,11 @@
>>     from operator import itemgetter, iadd
>>
>>
>> -The :mod:`operator` module exports a set of functions implemented in C
>> -corresponding to the intrinsic operators of Python.  For example,
>> -``operator.add(x, y)`` is equivalent to the expression ``x+y``.  The function
>> -names are those used for special class methods; variants without leading and
>> -trailing ``__`` are also provided for convenience.
>
> I disagree with this change. Knowing that they are written in C is
> important when deciding to pass them to e.g. sort() or sorted(),
> because you know it will be faster than an arbitrary pure Python
> function.

In that case, I would rather speak of "fast" functions rather than
"implemented in C" functions (a la the itertools docs). Would that be
acceptable?



-- 
Regards,
Benjamin