On 2011/04/10 07:04:45, Larry Hastings wrote: > http://codereview.appspot.com/4358054/diff/1/Doc/library/configparser.rst#newcode979 > Doc/library/configparser.rst:979: files. > 80 cols please. ...
13 years, 8 months ago
(2011-04-27 15:45:10 UTC)
#2
On 2011/04/10 07:04:45, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
http://codereview.appspot.com/4358054/diff/1/Doc/library/configparser.rst#new...
> Doc/library/configparser.rst:979: files.
> 80 cols please.
Fixed.
> Your phrasing is a bit awkward. May I suggest:
> Read and parse configuration data from *f*, which must be an iterable yielding
> Unicode strings (for example any file object or file-like object).
>
Thanks for help. Definitely sounds better.
>
http://codereview.appspot.com/4358054/diff/1/Doc/library/configparser.rst#new...
> Doc/library/configparser.rst:989: be migrated by wrapping them with the
> following generator::
> Again your phrasing isn't good English; I'm guessing you're not a native
> speaker.
No, I'm not. Didn't think it stands out so much, though ;)
> Prior to Python 3.2, this function was called :meth:`readfp`, and it read
lines
> from *f* by calling the object's :meth:`readline` method. If you have
existing
> code that calls :meth:`readfp`, and the object you pass in as *f* supports
> :meth:`readline` but doesn't support iteration, you can migrate to Python 3.2
by
> wrapping your object with the following generator::
This is inaccurate and misses the style used in the rest of the document. I
rewrote it once again, hope the result meets your taste as well :)
>
http://codereview.appspot.com/4358054/diff/1/Doc/library/configparser.rst#new...
> Doc/library/configparser.rst:995: line = f.readline()
> Do you want to give an example of use here?
>
Sure, good idea.
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4358054/diff/1/Lib/configparser.py#newcode697
> Lib/configparser.py:697: The `f' argument must be iterable, returning one line
> at a time.
> Your text is okay, but I think this is a little better:
>
> The 'f' argument must be iterable, behaving identically to a file-like object.
This version is less specific. I'd rather keep my wording this time.
Issue 4358054: Issue 11670
Created 13 years, 9 months ago by Lukasz.Langa (ambv)
Modified 13 years, 8 months ago
Reviewers: Larry Hastings
Base URL:
Comments: 5