Skip to content

[Doc]: above vs below wording in async programming #24632

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
jamesbraza opened this issue Dec 5, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #24645
Closed

[Doc]: above vs below wording in async programming #24632

jamesbraza opened this issue Dec 5, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #24645
Labels
Documentation Good first issue Open a pull request against these issues if there are no active ones!

Comments

@jamesbraza
Copy link
Contributor

Documentation Link

https://matplotlib.org/stable/users/explain/interactive_guide.html#input-hook-integration

Problem

There is a sentence:

If you want the GUI to be responsive during long running code it is necessary to periodically flush the GUI event queue as described above.

However, if you click the link, it takes you further down the page. Yes this is a docs nit, but for a half second the "above" being incorrect made me question if I'd enough coffee yet.

Suggested improvement

If you want the GUI to be responsive during long running code it is necessary to periodically flush the GUI event queue as described in the explicit event loop control section.

I think using words like "above" and "below" are brittle and likely to become stale.

@story645 story645 added the Good first issue Open a pull request against these issues if there are no active ones! label Dec 5, 2022
@tacaswell
Copy link
Member

Thank you for the careful reading :)

I am 👍🏻 on that wording change, can you open a PR?

@Busayo-ojo
Copy link

Hi @tacaswell Can I work on this?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Documentation Good first issue Open a pull request against these issues if there are no active ones!
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants