[Patches] [ python-Patches-727789 ] Editing of __str__ and __repr__ docs
SourceForge.net
noreply@sourceforge.net
Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:04:55 -0700
Patches item #727789, was opened at 2003-04-25 22:25
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by donnc
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=727789&group_id=5470
Category: Documentation
Group: Python 2.3
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Steven Taschuk (staschuk)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Editing of __str__ and __repr__ docs
Initial Comment:
A recent thread in comp.lang.python [1] suggests that
there is some question whether the existing docs for
the __str__ and __repr__ methods is clear, and whether
what it says is good in the first place.
The patch shows proposed changes based on the
discussions in that thread. The new text treats __repr__
as a programmer-centric stringification (with eval(repr(x))
== x as a possibility, rather than a principle), and __str__
as a more general-purpose stringification-as-appropriate-
to-the-object.
[1] http://groups.google.com/groups?th=24b817d49ec3a59b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Donn Cave (donnc)
Date: 2003-07-09 00:04
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=42839
In __str__, I would replace the whole commentary paragraph
with "This string value is the result of converting the object
data to string type, for use in applications that require a
string and don't care about the original object per se."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Brett Cannon (bcannon)
Date: 2003-05-09 00:20
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=357491
I agree with Raymond that it seems "wordy". For instance, the first changed
paragraph is basically just trying to say "__repr__ should return something
that can be past to 'eval' to return return the same object. If this is not
possible then make its output useful to the programmer." Don't need to go
on about it needing to be a "valid Python expression" and such.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2003-04-29 04:52
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
The patch looks technically correct. It is wordy and I liked
the original better, but clarity is more important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=727789&group_id=5470