[issue12672] Some problems in documentation extending/newtypes.html

[Éric Araujo]

Éric Araujo <merwok at netwok.org> added the comment:

> I know perfectly well that [].append is valid Python,
> but I don't think this is the clearest way to give an example of an
> object method. I think spelling [].append's meaning more explicitly
> would be better.
Would it be clearer if we replaced the literal with a name?

  These C functions are called “type methods” to distinguish them from
- things like [].append (which we call “object methods”).
+ methods bound to specific instances (things like sys.path.append),
+ which we call “object methods”.

> I'm also aware that there are tab problems all over the code base.
> I'm not suggesting a large cleanup.
*I* was suggesting a large cleanup :), but we can do that in another commit.  If you want to clean the example code in Doc/extending or even just in newtypes.rst, I think you can just go ahead.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue12672>
_______________________________________