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

bpo-38062: [doc] clarify that atexit uses equality comparisons internally. #26935

Merged
merged 8 commits into from Jun 29, 2021

Conversation

jdevries3133
Copy link
Contributor

@jdevries3133 jdevries3133 commented Jun 28, 2021

I added a note with an example as shown in the bpo. I'm not sure if the
example is too verbose, and I should pair it down to just one sentence;
what do you think?

Also, there is a note about edge cases where registered functions are
not called. I elevated that to a warning block to maintain a better visual
hierarchy alongside the new note I added.

https://bugs.python.org/issue38062

@iritkatriel
Copy link
Member

iritkatriel commented Jun 28, 2021

I'm not sure if the
example is too verbose, and I should pair it down to just one sentence;
what do you think?

Yes, I think this is too much real estate in the doc allocated to a relatively minor point. I don't think this deserves more than a sentence.

Also, go easy on the "warnings" (red boxes). We don't want to litter the docs with them.

Doc/library/atexit.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jdevries3133
Copy link
Contributor Author

jdevries3133 commented Jun 28, 2021

@iritkatriel Thank you for the feedback! I revised my changes accordingly. This time, I just brought the Note section from the original author up into the first paragraph an added an additional sentence: "Equality comparisons are used internally during registration and unregistration operations, so function references do not need to have matching identities."

Doc/library/atexit.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Doc/library/atexit.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@iritkatriel
Copy link
Member

iritkatriel commented Jun 28, 2021

LGTM. @mdickinson what do you think?

Copy link
Member

@mdickinson mdickinson left a comment

LGTM2, modulo one typo fix.

Doc/library/atexit.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Mark Dickinson <dickinsm@gmail.com>
@jdevries3133
Copy link
Contributor Author

jdevries3133 commented Jun 29, 2021

@mdickinson typo fixed, thank you for the catch!

@iritkatriel iritkatriel merged commit 12803c5 into python:main Jun 29, 2021
13 checks passed
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

miss-islington commented Jun 29, 2021

Thanks @jdevries3133 for the PR, and @iritkatriel for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.10, 3.9.
🐍🍒🤖

miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2021
…ally. (pythonGH-26935)

(cherry picked from commit 12803c5)

Co-authored-by: Jack DeVries <58614260+jdevries3133@users.noreply.github.com>
@bedevere-bot
Copy link

bedevere-bot commented Jun 29, 2021

GH-26956 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch.

miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2021
…ally. (pythonGH-26935)

(cherry picked from commit 12803c5)

Co-authored-by: Jack DeVries <58614260+jdevries3133@users.noreply.github.com>
@bedevere-bot
Copy link

bedevere-bot commented Jun 29, 2021

GH-26957 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.9 branch.

iritkatriel pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2021
…ally. (GH-26935) (GH-26956)

(cherry picked from commit 12803c5)

Co-authored-by: Jack DeVries <58614260+jdevries3133@users.noreply.github.com>
iritkatriel pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2021
…ally. (GH-26935) (GH-26957)

(cherry picked from commit 12803c5)

Co-authored-by: Jack DeVries <58614260+jdevries3133@users.noreply.github.com>
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
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants