[Python-Dev] configparser: should optionxform be idempotent?
songofacandy at gmail.com
Thu Mar 7 21:51:25 EST 2019
> > We could say something like:
> > "The optionxform function transforms option names to a
> > canonical form. If the name is already in canonical form,
> > it should be returned unchanged."
> How about:
> "The optionxform function transforms option names to a
> canonical form. This should be an idempotent function:
> if the name is already in canonical form, it should be
> returned unchanged."
> requires six extra words, but it uses the correct technical term which
> will be familiar to some proportion of users, while also explaining the
> term for those who aren't familiar with it. We all win!
Thank you for suggestions.
Personally speaking, I think technical jargon is much easier than
normal English idioms or complex English syntax.
I learned "idempotent" long ago while learning HTTP. On the other hand,
I don't know normal English idioms even 5-year children who speaks
English at home knows.
Technical jargon is good tool to communicate with people uses English
only for programming. It shows the meaning very clearly with few words.
So I agree with you. If reader may not know tech jargon widely used,
teach it instead of avoid it.
Inada Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com>
More information about the Python-Dev