gh-152397: Provide a cross-reference to PEP 798 unpacking syntax#152454
Conversation
Documentation build overview
|
|
Thanks @rhettinger for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13. |
|
Thanks @rhettinger for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.14. |
|
Thanks @rhettinger for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.15. |
|
GH-152458 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch. |
|
GH-152459 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
|
GH-152460 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.15 branch. |
|
Can we change the PEP reference to a link to the syntax description in the docs? And add a "since 3.15" mention? |
|
I made a pull request with the change: #152462 |
|
My preference is to keep the PEP reference because it best describes the relationship between the new unpacking syntax and the existing itertool functions. Also, the syntax docs in the language reference are rather technical and sometimes difficult to follow. However, if you feel strongly about replacing the PEP reference, I would be happy to make the edit. I don't feel like the |
|
GH-152460 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.15 branch. |
|
True, in my pull request I left out the version mention, since the language reference has it. The language reference also has a link to the PEP if people are interested. The PEP itself starts with:
I don't think we should send people outside the docs only for them to find a sign that says they should go back to the docs. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.