On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:56 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Skip changed it to the present wording last year:
>> http://svn.python.org/view/python/trunk/Doc/library/queue.rst?r1=59750&r2=59969
>
> I see. I agree that the change was for the better.
Agreed too, though it would seem that *if* there
> Skip changed it to the present wording last year:
> http://svn.python.org/view/python/trunk/Doc/library/queue.rst?r1=59750&r2=59969
I see. I agree that the change was for the better.
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
>> [MvL]
>>>
>>> At this point, I do request that the patch is reverted completely
>>> (i.e. that the documentation is restored), and that the qualification
>>> "not reliable!" is removed from the doc strings of the methods, as
>>> it is f
[MvL]
At this point, I do request that the patch is reverted completely
(i.e. that the documentation is restored), and that the qualification
"not reliable!" is removed from the doc strings of the methods, as
it is factually incorrect.
I would be happy to restore the documentation. You want
