-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32.1k
Wrong/missing code formats in datetime documentation #85453
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
Comments
The datetime page in the docs is missing a lot of needed backquotes syntax for inline code samples. There are some wrong role links too, due to ambiguity in the text roles. |
hello @erlend-aasland, I would like to help with this |
Great, @uatach, go ahead! Let me know if you have any questions. |
In PR #118068, code formatting was removed from many numeric literals; let's follow up with a PR to make that consistent across datetime.rst. The following lines still contain numeric literals marked up with double backticks:
|
Remark by Serhiy #118068 (comment) for L373:
cpython/Doc/library/datetime.rst Line 373 in 17947e2
|
Remark by Serhiy #118068 (comment):
cpython/Doc/library/datetime.rst Lines 347 to 352 in 17947e2
Check the whole file and fix up any incorrect capitalisation. |
Remark by Serhiy #118068 (comment):
cpython/Doc/library/datetime.rst Lines 328 to 330 in 17947e2
|
…ppets and variables (#118068) Also remove formatting from numeric literals. Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Erlend E. Aasland <erlend@python.org>
…de snippets and variables (pythonGH-118068) Also remove formatting from numeric literals. (cherry picked from commit 809aa9a) Co-authored-by: edson duarte <eduarte.uatach@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Erlend E. Aasland <erlend@python.org>
Is this issue still open? I would like to contribute. |
Could the docs editorial board review this? I am not convinced of the necessity of avoiding timezone or datetime. |
@python/editorial-board Please review thoughts on moving from |
There are already plenty of places where the docs use "time zone" (when referring to the general concept, not the module or object). I Googled and the consensus seems to be that it's two words. Regarding "datetime" vs. "date time", neither is correct English. IMO the concept ought to be referred to as "date and time", or could possibly shortened as "date/time". But I'm more open to keeping "datetime" as a form of jargon we're inventing. (Though I don't feel that way about "timezone".) |
Yes, this is what #118449 proposes. |
…etime.rst (pythonGH-118449) (cherry picked from commit 1755df7) Co-authored-by: edson duarte <eduarte.uatach@gmail.com>
…etime.rst (pythonGH-118449) (cherry picked from commit 1755df7) Co-authored-by: edson duarte <eduarte.uatach@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
…ythonGH-123655) (cherry picked from commit 9aea9c1) Co-authored-by: edson duarte <eduarte.uatach@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
…ythonGH-123655) (cherry picked from commit 9aea9c1) Co-authored-by: edson duarte <eduarte.uatach@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
Variables and literals are marked up using backticks.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
bugs.python.org fields:
Linked PRs
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: