Skip to content

Improve wording. #15008

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Improve wording. #15008

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jugmac00
Copy link
Contributor

"Arguments may be integers... " could be misunderstand as they also could be strings.

New wording makes it clear, that arguments have to be integers.

"Arguments may be integers... " could be misunderstand as they also could be strings.

New wording makes it clear, that arguments have to be integers.
@the-knights-who-say-ni
Copy link

Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept your contribution by verifying you have signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

Our records indicate we have not received your CLA. For legal reasons we need you to sign this before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue.

If you have recently signed the CLA, please wait at least one business day
before our records are updated.

You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received.

Thanks again for your contribution, we look forward to reviewing it!

@ned-deily
Copy link
Member

@jugmac00, thanks for your suggested change and contributing to Python. Some comments on your proposed change:

  1. I suggest using "must be" rather than "have to be": it's more compact and is used much more often in the documentation;
  2. There are two other almost identical usages elsewhere on the datetime page that should also be changed: for datetime and time. (All three were changed a long time ago in 5c10664).
  3. Our normal process for making changes to code and documentation is to first make the PR against the master branch. Once the PR is reviewed and accepted, the core developer handling the PR will decide whether to backport to existing release branches like 3.7. The devguide goes into more detail.

Since the change in the PR is simple to recreate but changing a PR from one branch to another is error-prone, I am going to close this PR. Please resubmit it with the suggested changes as a new PR against the master branch (and reference this PR in the description so you don't have to copy everything). Thanks!

@jugmac00
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ned-deily Thank you very much for taking the time to give me that kind of detailed feedback!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
awaiting review docs Documentation in the Doc dir
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants