Tim Peters <t...@python.org> added the comment:
Now you may be getting somewhere ;-) Complaining about the docs wasn't getting traction because they're using standard terminology with the standard meanings, and tell the plain truth about what the class requires and delivers. You wish it required something else instead. Fine: be direct about that! Suggest a feature enhancement rather than contorting the docs to pretend the class "really" requires what you _wish_ it required and is computing "the reverse" of what it claims to be computing. That won't be accepted because it's not true. How about, e.g., suggesting instead a new optional constructor argument, like `successor_graph=False`, which can be passed as `True` to say that the `graph` argument is a successor dict rather than the default predecessor dict? I wouldn't oppose that, and it would be easy to implement (indeed, way back when here I already posted code to do it). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue46071> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
