Message227953
| Author |
acdha |
| Recipients |
acdha, docs@python, terry.reedy, zaytsev |
| Date |
2014年09月30日.17:16:20 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1412097381.22.0.767121386578.issue20164@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I agree that making the code match the docs would be preferable – an unexpected KeyError might be easier to track down that way but it'd still surprise most developers.
re:pwd docs, the formatting in https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/8e9df3414185/Doc/library/pwd.rst makes it easy to miss the KeyError note – it's at the end of a paragraph after a table and since "entry" is a generic term it's possible to misread it as applying to fields within the record rather than the record itself. I think it would at least be worth adding a newline and perhaps explicitly noting that it applies to any function which returns a password database entry.
Given that there are only two functions which it applies to, it might be best to simply add a note to each of them for people who use "pydoc pwd.getpwduid" or an IDE and don't see the module-level docs but that's getting a bit contrived. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2014年09月30日 17:16:21 | acdha | set | recipients:
+ acdha, terry.reedy, docs@python, zaytsev |
| 2014年09月30日 17:16:21 | acdha | set | messageid: <1412097381.22.0.767121386578.issue20164@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2014年09月30日 17:16:21 | acdha | link | issue20164 messages |
| 2014年09月30日 17:16:20 | acdha | create |
|