Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> added the comment: > I know perfectly well that [].append is valid Python, > but I don't think this is the clearest way to give an example of an > object method. I think spelling [].append's meaning more explicitly > would be better. Would it be clearer if we replaced the literal with a name?
These C functions are called “type methods” to distinguish them from - things like [].append (which we call “object methods”). + methods bound to specific instances (things like sys.path.append), + which we call “object methods”. > I'm also aware that there are tab problems all over the code base. > I'm not suggesting a large cleanup. *I* was suggesting a large cleanup :), but we can do that in another commit. If you want to clean the example code in Doc/extending or even just in newtypes.rst, I think you can just go ahead. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12672> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
