Skip to content
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

Redundand information on Doc/reference/lexical_analysis.rst #75752

Closed
gpkc mannequin opened this issue Sep 24, 2017 · 12 comments
Closed

Redundand information on Doc/reference/lexical_analysis.rst #75752

gpkc mannequin opened this issue Sep 24, 2017 · 12 comments
Labels
3.7 (EOL) end of life docs Documentation in the Doc dir

Comments

@gpkc
Copy link
Mannequin

gpkc mannequin commented Sep 24, 2017

BPO 31571
Nosy @gvanrossum, @mitsuhiko, @serhiy-storchaka, @Mariatta, @gpkc
PRs
  • bpo-31571: Removing redundant information (Docs) #3691
  • [3.6] bpo-31571: Remove duplicated info in Lexical Analysis documentation (GH-3691) #3754
  • 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:

    assignee = None
    closed_at = <Date 2017-09-25.23:25:56.209>
    created_at = <Date 2017-09-24.14:56:17.868>
    labels = ['3.7', 'docs']
    title = 'Redundand information on Doc/reference/lexical_analysis.rst'
    updated_at = <Date 2017-09-25.23:25:56.208>
    user = 'https://github.com/gpkc'

    bugs.python.org fields:

    activity = <Date 2017-09-25.23:25:56.208>
    actor = 'Mariatta'
    assignee = 'docs@python'
    closed = True
    closed_date = <Date 2017-09-25.23:25:56.209>
    closer = 'Mariatta'
    components = ['Documentation']
    creation = <Date 2017-09-24.14:56:17.868>
    creator = 'Guilherme'
    dependencies = []
    files = []
    hgrepos = []
    issue_num = 31571
    keywords = ['patch']
    message_count = 12.0
    messages = ['302859', '302860', '302862', '302863', '302864', '302890', '302912', '302971', '302974', '302989', '302990', '302991']
    nosy_count = 6.0
    nosy_names = ['gvanrossum', 'aronacher', 'docs@python', 'serhiy.storchaka', 'Mariatta', 'Guilherme']
    pr_nums = ['3691', '3754']
    priority = 'normal'
    resolution = 'fixed'
    stage = 'resolved'
    status = 'closed'
    superseder = None
    type = None
    url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue31571'
    versions = ['Python 3.6', 'Python 3.7']

    @gpkc
    Copy link
    Mannequin Author

    gpkc mannequin commented Sep 24, 2017

    The file Doc/reference/lexical_analysis.rst has at least two redundant parts.

    The first one is quoted below:
    "As of Python 3.3 it is possible again to prefix string literals with a u prefix to simplify maintenance of dual 2.x and 3.x codebases."

    This is repeated a couple paragraphs after:
    "New in version 3.3: Support for the unicode legacy literal (u'value') was reintroduced to simplify the maintenance of dual Python 2.x and 3.x codebases. See PEP-414 for more information."

    Also, this other one:
    "Note that numeric literals do not include a sign; a phrase like -1 is actually an expression composed of the unary operator - and the literal 1."

    Is literally repeated twice, only that on the first time it has quotes around the - operator:
    "Note that numeric literals do not include a sign; a phrase like -1 is actually an expression composed of the unary operator ‘-‘ and the literal 1."

    @gpkc gpkc mannequin added the 3.7 (EOL) end of life label Sep 24, 2017
    @gpkc gpkc mannequin assigned docspython Sep 24, 2017
    @gpkc gpkc mannequin added the docs Documentation in the Doc dir label Sep 24, 2017
    @serhiy-storchaka
    Copy link
    Member

    The first pair was added in 50364b4 by Armin Ronacher.

    The duplicate of the other phrase was introduced in 60f2f0c.

    @Mariatta
    Copy link
    Member

    I think we can remove

    As of Python 3.3 it is possible again to prefix ..."
    

    and keep the other one where it says:

    .. versionadded:: 3.3
       Support for the unicode legacy literal ....
    

    About the sentence about numeric literals that appears twice: it appears on different sections of the language reference documentation. It's very likely for a person to only read one section and not the other. I think it's ok to have them in different places like that.

    @gpkc
    Copy link
    Mannequin Author

    gpkc mannequin commented Sep 24, 2017

    I believe that the sentence regarding the - operator also applies to Integer literals and Imaginary literals. But it only appears on the Floating point literals and Numeric literals sections.

    @gpkc
    Copy link
    Mannequin Author

    gpkc mannequin commented Sep 24, 2017

    Also, "Numeric literals" is a more general section, so rules that apply for the three types of numeric literals should probably go there to avoid repetition. Maybe the Integer, Floating point and Imaginary literal sections should be one section level deeper, so that they are under the Numeric Literal section.

    @gvanrossum
    Copy link
    Member

    Is there anything here that requires my attention?

    @serhiy-storchaka
    Copy link
    Member

    Guido, in 60f2f0c you added the phrase "Note that numeric literals do not include a sign; ..." in the "Numeric literals" section. Did you mean moving it from the "Floating point literals" section or creating a duplicate?

    @gvanrossum
    Copy link
    Member

    That's *really* old. Please clean up as you see fit!

    On Sep 24, 2017 10:33 PM, "Serhiy Storchaka" <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

    Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:

    Guido, in 60f2f0c you added the phrase
    "Note that numeric literals do not include a sign; ..." in the "Numeric
    literals" section. Did you mean moving it from the "Floating point
    literals" section or creating a duplicate?

    ----------


    Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
    <https://bugs.python.org/issue31571\>


    @gpkc
    Copy link
    Mannequin Author

    gpkc mannequin commented Sep 25, 2017

    In that case, I believe the PR I've opened should be fine?

    @Mariatta
    Copy link
    Member

    New changeset 4a2d00c by Mariatta (Guilherme Caminha) in branch 'master':
    bpo-31571: Remove duplicated info in Lexical Analysis documentation (GH-3691)
    4a2d00c

    @Mariatta
    Copy link
    Member

    New changeset 26b940f by Mariatta (Miss Islington (bot)) in branch '3.6':
    bpo-31571: Remove duplicated info in Lexical Analysis documentation (GH-3691) (GH-3754)
    26b940f

    @Mariatta
    Copy link
    Member

    The proposed change seems fine. Merged and backported.
    Thanks everyone!

    @ezio-melotti ezio-melotti transferred this issue from another repository Apr 10, 2022
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Labels
    3.7 (EOL) end of life docs Documentation in the Doc dir
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    3 participants