-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30k
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
Numerous minor issues in Language Reference #65638
Comments
Reported by Feliks Kluzniak on docs@: """ I have been reading the Language Reference Manual in order to teach myself Python 3. I noticed several minor errors, and a much larger number of linguistic or editorial infelicities. I have listed them all in the enclosed document: I hope it will be useful. Sincerely, P.S. My apologies for not having the time to weed out those remarks which might already have been entered into the list of „documentation bugs”. |
Attaching plain text version. |
BTW my opinion of the proposed changes is that many of them are good (obvious typos, reports of things unclear to a beginner, etc) but I don’t agree with some typographic changes, I find that some grammar changes are pedantic, and there are even a few misunderstandings of Python. |
I suggest at least a patch per chapter (3.x.y, 4.x.y, 6.x.y, ...). |
I also don't agree with most of the typographic changes and, like Éric find some of the grammar changes to be pedantic. The OP refers to his own changes as "editorial infelicities". This should have been a warning sign. The OP further warns, "I have been reading the Language Reference Manual in order to teach myself Python 3" which explains why Éric has found " a few misunderstandings of Python". If the OP cares enough to prepare a chapter by chapter patch (as suggested by Terry), I would be happy to review them one by one, applying any that are actual readability improvements. |
New changeset 053ba3c2c190 by Raymond Hettinger in branch '3.4': |
Most of the comments ended-up being useful and we applied. |
A few comments on the committed patch. The quoted diff is trimmed to just the hunks I have comments on. On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:21 AM, raymond.hettinger <python-checkins@python.org> wrote:
Typo here, looks like an unfinished thought. "because" rather than "be"?
Orphaned ')' on this line.
Unfinished thought here; "are create" -> "are used to create"?
While we're here, the object is in fact named, its name (name) is "<lambda>". It's not a valid identifier, but it is its name.
This sentence still doesn't read correctly to me; the simplest fix that makes sense to my brain is to remove "the" ("... summarizes operator precedence ..."). I would welcome any other better wording.
I agree with the OP that "comprised within" doesn't cut it. Does his suggestion of "must fit" instead of "is comprised" work or is there a better wording?
|
New changeset be8492101251 by Zachary Ware in branch '3.4': New changeset 99b469758f49 by Zachary Ware in branch 'default': |
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
bugs.python.org fields:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: