[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: >> Terry's and Martin' example sentences are transferable to that. >> However, the actual sentence was >> "dict.has_key(key) is equivalent to key in d, but deprecated." > The sentence being changed was perfectly and mathematically correct.

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

D'Arcy J.M. Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I think a clarification is in order. The sentence being changed was perfectly and mathematically correct. If you laid it out on a blackboard and parsed it (remember those days?) you could prove that it said the correct thing. No one is di

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Forgive me for playing stupid here, but I want to understand English better. I would fully understand the confusion had the sentence been "dict.has_key(key) is equivalent to key in d, but it is deprecated." Terry's and Martin' example sentence

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > The following pair of sentences illustrate what I am trying to say. > Guido was once a Nederlander, but he moved to America. > Guido was once a student of Professor X, but he moved to America. > In English, the second 'he' is ambiguous

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

Terry J. Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Benjamin: I thank you too for verifying that I was not crazy. Martin: I noticed native/non-native split too, and chalked it up to a subtle difference between German and English. For future reference, the problem with the original, as I see i

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Benjamin: Thanks for asking your teacher! It's curious that all the foreigners have no problems with the formulation, and all the native speakers do... There is clearly something to the English language that we haven't mastered yet.

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: After consulting with an English teacher who agreed that the phrasing was awkward, I fix it up in r67070. -- nosy: +benjamin.peterson resolution: -> fixed status: open -> closed ___ Python trac

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

Terry J. Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I believe "deprecated" at the end is the sort of dangling modifier deprecated by English style books I have read. I felt it to be sufficiently awkward and potentially confusing, at least for a moment, to be worth a few minutes to report and ch

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

D'Arcy J.M. Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: The original is not technically ambiguous modulo the dict/d issue. The suggested text just makes it more obvious. We just don't want to reduce the possibility of no confusion. :-) -- nosy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

David W. Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: The D'Arcy J.M. Cain wording is clearer. "dict.has_key(key) is deprecated. Use "key in dict" instead." would improve python. -- nosy: +LambertDW ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: If I understand English correctly, I don't see an ambiguity. Probably the poster(s) on c.l.p didn't look properly and read something like "equivalent to key in d, but the latter is deprecated". The d/dict inconsistency should be fixed. __

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

Giampaolo Rodola' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: English is not my first language but it seems obvious to me that the suggestion is using: >>> key in dict ...instead of: >>> dict.has_key(key) The only thing which may be confusing is the dictionary which is first called "dict" and the

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Out of curiosity: is that really ambiguous in plain English? -- nosy: +loewis ___ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue4243] has_key doc could be clearer

New submission from Terry J. Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 2.6 lib ref builtin types, mappings, has_key doc now says "dict.has_key(key) is equivalent to key in d, but deprecated." Posters on c.l.p found this confusing. Which is deprecated? I agree that this could be confusing to a beginner. D'Arcy