Wording of s * n in Common Sequence Operations is not optimal

[JulienPalard]

BPO	41933
Nosy	@JulienPalard, @Sipty
PRs	bpo-41933: Clarify wording for s * n in Common Sequence Operations #22570

^{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 2021-03-15.22:51:22.063>
created_at = <Date 2020-10-04.16:20:21.146>
labels = ['easy', 'docs']
title = 'Wording of s * n in Common Sequence Operations is not optimal'
updated_at = <Date 2021-03-15.22:51:22.063>
user = 'https://github.com/JulienPalard'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2021-03-15.22:51:22.063>
actor = 'mdk'
assignee = 'docs@python'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2021-03-15.22:51:22.063>
closer = 'mdk'
components = ['Documentation']
creation = <Date 2020-10-04.16:20:21.146>
creator = 'mdk'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 41933
keywords = ['patch', 'easy']
message_count = 3.0
messages = ['377958', '378069', '388786']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['docs@python', 'mdk', 'chavdar']
pr_nums = ['22570']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue41933'
versions = []

[JulienPalard]

As reported by Graham Ewart on docs@,

in https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#common-sequence-operations:

s * n or n * s | equivalent to adding s to itself n times

is badly worded. In fact it's more like n-1 times, but yet it's not adding s to itself.

I'd go for "n times the s sequence" or "n copies of the s sequence" instead, which both avoid the "n-1" and the "to itself" parts.

[Sipty]

Looks like a fitting first contribution. Working on a PR now :-)

[JulienPalard]

New changeset 0269ce8 by Chavdar Yotov in branch 'master':
bpo-41933: Clarify wording for s * n in Common Sequence Operations (GH-22570)
0269ce8