[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-09-07 Thread Roundup Robot
Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset a4360b1b45a8 by Senthil Kumaran in branch 'default': issue20842 - null merge with 3.5 https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a4360b1b45a8 -- nosy: +python-dev ___ Python tracker

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-09-05 Thread Senthil Kumaran
Senthil Kumaran added the comment: Change committed. - 3.5 * 103098:ecbad01262c8 - default * 103099:ee58ece83391 -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> commit review status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-09-05 Thread Senthil Kumaran
Senthil Kumaran added the comment: This is 3.3 version of patch attached. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file44383/issue20842-3.3-v5.patch ___ Python tracker

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-09-05 Thread Senthil Kumaran
Senthil Kumaran added the comment: For 3.5 version of patch, we have bring in some additional changes from issue26896 which properly clarified finder from importer. These changes are not required in the default branch. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-09-05 Thread Senthil Kumaran
Senthil Kumaran added the comment: I agree with the comment made by Oren. Not all instances of finder should be referenced as generic finder. Some classes and functions are are still PEP 302 specific finder. In the commit, 3987667bf98f Nick Coghlan modified the following functions to to use

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-08-08 Thread Oren Milman
Oren Milman added the comment: ImpImporter was first added in changeset 37808 (https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ccc0b5412799) and updated a day later in changeset 37821 (https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3135648026c4). Both of these commits were introduced to support PEP 302. Since then,

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-07-16 Thread Martin Panter
Martin Panter added the comment: I still think the links are too dense. Three links to the same term in two short paragraphs is too much. Do you think it would be okay to just link the first occurrence for pkgutil.ImpImporter? Also, there is still a problem at least the definition of “finder”

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-07-14 Thread Jaysinh shukla
Jaysinh shukla added the comment: Adding updated patch after merging Issue 26896. Requesting to review. Thanks! -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file43721/issue20842_v2.diff ___ Python tracker

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-07-08 Thread Oren Milman
Oren Milman added the comment: Note that http://bugs.python.org/issue26896 is now closed (the patches proposed in it (with some minor changes) were committed). -- nosy: +Oren Milman ___ Python tracker

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-06-25 Thread Martin Panter
Martin Panter added the comment: I’m not sure what the best solution is. I am just pointing out the problem. It seems an “importer” as mentioned in PEP 302 is more general than the current glossary definition. E.g. ImpImporter() returns an object that has a find_module() method (which

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-06-25 Thread Jaysinh shukla
Jaysinh shukla added the comment: Dear Martin, I observed your comment. I can see, issue mentioned by you http://bugs.python.org/issue26896 contains patch of clarifying the reference of Importer, Finder. The issue-26896 is still under review phase. It will be good step to update doc in

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-06-23 Thread Martin Panter
Martin Panter added the comment: See also Issue 26896. Apparently some of the terms you are linking are used wrongly. -- nosy: +martin.panter ___ Python tracker

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-06-23 Thread Jaysinh shukla
Jaysinh shukla added the comment: Submitting the patch for this issue. I observed the last message of respected Kushal but because the message was posted too earlier decided to submit patch. Thanks! -- keywords: +patch nosy: +jaysinh.shukla Added file:

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2016-06-08 Thread Berker Peksag
Changes by Berker Peksag : -- keywords: +easy versions: +Python 3.6 -Python 3.4 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2014-03-13 Thread Éric Araujo
Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org: -- nosy: +eric.araujo ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20842 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2014-03-13 Thread Kushal Das
Kushal Das added the comment: Will submit a patch for this. -- nosy: +kushaldas ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue20842 ___ ___

[issue20842] pkgutil docs should reference glossary terms not PEP 302

2014-03-03 Thread Nick Coghlan
New submission from Nick Coghlan: The pkgutil docs still point at PEP 302 when mentioning loaders, importers, etc. They should reference the glossary terms (:term:`loader`, etc) instead. -- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 212630 nosy: docs@python, ncoghlan