Prev: Python vs. Fedora and CentOS
Next: tkinter function outout to text widget
From: Martin v. Loewis on 30 May 2010 18:54
> Assuming that I am correct, can I create myself a login on the bugs
> tracker and re-open the issue to get this sorted?

Definitely not. The issue you are looking at has been fixed; whatever
your issue is (you didn't state it clearly), it must be a different
one. So if you are going to report anything, please submit a new bug
report instead.

For the record, the issue you were looking at was a complaint that the
documentation is incorrect. This had been fixed by correcting the
documentation.

Please structure bug reports as follows:
1. this is what you did
2. this is what happened
3. this is what you had expected/wanted to happen instead

Regards,
Martin
From: Steven D'Aprano on 30 May 2010 19:34
On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:54:16 +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:

>> Assuming that I am correct, can I create myself a login on the bugs
>> tracker and re-open the issue to get this sorted?
>
> Definitely not. The issue you are looking at has been fixed; whatever
> your issue is (you didn't state it clearly), it must be a different one.
> So if you are going to report anything, please submit a new bug report
> instead.
>
> For the record, the issue you were looking at was a complaint that the
> documentation is incorrect. This had been fixed by correcting the
> documentation.

I think Mark's point is that the code snippet given isn't a full
replacement for xrange, since it doesn't support negative step sizes, nor
does it raise an exception on step=0.

I can see why somebody might argue that the documentation is wrong. The
given snippet *isn't* a replacement for xrange, but merely an example of
how you might get xrange-like behaviour over a restricted domain.

Since the docs are read by people with vastly different levels of
experience, skill and nous, I think it's a reasonable complaint to make.
I am sure that there will be plenty of people who will take the docs
literally and be surprised when their code fails because the xrange
replacement fails.

I'd suggest fixing the docs to make it clear that the snippet is a
simplified example rather than a replacement, rather than trying to
complicate the snippet to cover all cases xrange deals with.

In my opinion, all it takes is the addition of two words:

If a larger range is needed, an alternate version can be crafted using
the itertools module, for example: takewhile(lambda x: x<stop, (start
+i*step for i in count())).




--
Steven
From: Martin v. Loewis on 31 May 2010 04:22
>> For the record, the issue you were looking at was a complaint that the
>> documentation is incorrect. This had been fixed by correcting the
>> documentation.
>
> I think Mark's point is that the code snippet given isn't a full
> replacement for xrange, since it doesn't support negative step sizes, nor
> does it raise an exception on step=0.

Still, that issue is different from 7721. 7721 was about a
completely-nonworking example in the documentation. This error has been
fully
corrected. So this issue *is* fixed, reopining it would be
inappropriate.

There may be another issue with this example, which should be reported
separately.

> Since the docs are read by people with vastly different levels of
> experience, skill and nous, I think it's a reasonable complaint to make.

That may well be. The proposed approach (reopen the issue) is what I
consider unreasonable.

Regards,
Martin
From: Mark Lawrence on 31 May 2010 17:38
On 31/05/2010 09:22, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
>>> For the record, the issue you were looking at was a complaint that the
>>> documentation is incorrect. This had been fixed by correcting the
>>> documentation.
>>
>> I think Mark's point is that the code snippet given isn't a full
>> replacement for xrange, since it doesn't support negative step sizes, nor
>> does it raise an exception on step=0.
>
> Still, that issue is different from 7721. 7721 was about a
> completely-nonworking example in the documentation. This error has been
> fully
> corrected. So this issue *is* fixed, reopining it would be
> inappropriate.
>
> There may be another issue with this example, which should be reported
> separately.
>
>> Since the docs are read by people with vastly different levels of
>> experience, skill and nous, I think it's a reasonable complaint to make.
>
> That may well be. The proposed approach (reopen the issue) is what I
> consider unreasonable.
>
> Regards,
> Martin

Just forget it, if anyone falls foul of the garbage that has been put
into the documentation, you can accept responsibility.

Disgusted and offended.

Mark Lawrence.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Python vs. Fedora and CentOS
Next: tkinter function outout to text widget