-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
PEP 282: Improve upon colloquial phrasing #2667
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
Conversation
Also it is better readable for non-English native speakers.
We generally avoid unnecessary changes to old PEPs, so I'd rather keep the previous wording here. It's true though that the syntax highlighting is wrong in the second code block: https://peps.python.org/pep-0282/#simple-example. We should fix that so it doesn't get formatted as if it's Python code. |
Yeah, the real fix here is replacing the non-Python
This really should be done consistently for older PEPs that use non-Python syntax in code blocks so they render as intended, which in many/most cases can be done by adding You're welcome to implement that here if you'd like, otherwise I'd be happy to submit a replacement PR to take care of it. Just let us know! |
Done.
Done. Not sure if it works as expected. Any way for me to review the results before comitting?
Done. Did not change contents either, so now there are three adjacent code blocks.
Done.
Did not understand. Did not touch any other PEP files, as it seems out of scope here. |
CRITICAL | ||
* DEBUG | ||
* INFO | ||
* WARN |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After the PEP was written, WARN
was replaced by WARNING
as preferable.though WARN
remains as an alias. Perhaps this should be reflected here too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can defer to your judgement as PEP author, but per PEP 1,
In general, PEPs are no longer substantially modified after they have reached the Accepted, Final, Rejected or Superseded state. Once resolution is reached, a PEP is considered a historical document rather than a living specification. Formal documentation of the expected behavior should be maintained elsewhere, such as the Language Reference for core features, the Library Reference for standard library modules or the PyPA Specifications for packaging.
Presumably there are other things that are out of date here too, so IMO there isn't a need to update this just because it happened to be touched in a syntax update to ensure the PEP renders as intended.
I just merged #2702 which adds a new banner to point readers to where they can find the up to date, canonical documentation for the feature proposed by the PEP once its Final, which we could use to add a prominent link directing readers to the stdlib logging module reference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed.
Looks like this is generally good to go from a PEP editor perspective on my end, with one comment. Thanks!
As mentioned in the README, you can both check the RTD rendered preview on the PR, or build the PEPs yourself locally.
Sorry, I realize that was confusing—that was not intended to be anything you needed to do. |
Co-authored-by: CAM Gerlach <CAM.Gerlach@Gerlach.CAM>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Syntax highligting interprets ' as start of a string and colors the following text differently.
Also this change makes the text fragment better readable for non-English native speakers.