Skip to content

[3.8] bpo-40636: Clarify the zip built-in docstring. (GH-20118) #20124

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 15, 2020

Conversation

miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

@miss-islington miss-islington commented May 15, 2020

Clarify the zip built-in docstring.

This puts much simpler text up front along with an example.

As it was, the zip built-in docstring was technically correct. But too
technical for the reader who shouldn't need to know about __next__ and
StopIteration as most people do not need to understand the internal
implementation details of the iterator protocol in their daily life.

This is a documentation only change, intended to be backported to 3.8; it is
only tangentially related to PEP-618 which might offer new behavior options
in the future.

Wording based a bit more on enumerate per Brandt's suggestion.

This gets rid of the legacy wording paragraph which seems too tied to
implementation details of the iterator protocol which isn't relevant here.

Co-authored-by: Brandt Bucher brandtbucher@gmail.com
(cherry picked from commit 6a5d3ff)

Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith greg@krypto.org

https://bugs.python.org/issue40636

Automerge-Triggered-By: @gpshead

Clarify the zip built-in docstring.

This puts much simpler text up front along with an example.

As it was, the zip built-in docstring was technically correct.  But too
technical for the reader who shouldn't _need_ to know about `__next__` and
`StopIteration` as most people do not need to understand the internal
implementation details of the iterator protocol in their daily life.

This is a documentation only change, intended to be backported to 3.8; it is
only tangentially related to PEP-618 which might offer new behavior options
in the future.

Wording based a bit more on enumerate per Brandt's suggestion.

This gets rid of the legacy wording paragraph which seems too tied to
implementation details of the iterator protocol which isn't relevant here.

Co-authored-by: Brandt Bucher <brandtbucher@gmail.com>
(cherry picked from commit 6a5d3ff)

Co-authored-by: Gregory P. Smith <greg@krypto.org>
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gpshead: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

@miss-islington miss-islington merged commit c3d025a into python:3.8 May 15, 2020
@miss-islington miss-islington deleted the backport-6a5d3ff-3.8 branch May 15, 2020 21:43
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gpshead: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

1 similar comment
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gpshead: Status check is done, and it's a success ✅ .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants