Skip to content

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

Merged
miss-islington merged 1 commit into
python:3.8from
miss-islington:backport-6a5d3ff-3.8
May 15, 2020
Merged

[3.8] bpo-40636: Clarify the zip built-in docstring. (GH-20118)#20124
miss-islington merged 1 commit into
python:3.8from
miss-islington:backport-6a5d3ff-3.8

Conversation

@miss-islington

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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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
Copy Markdown
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
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

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

1 similar comment
@miss-islington

Copy link
Copy Markdown
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