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

[Antoine Pitrou]

Le mardi 20 décembre 2011 à 10:57 -0500, Benjamin Peterson a écrit :
> 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?

Definitely.

Regards

Antoine.