gh-144473: Add "steal" term to glossary; clarify "stealing" on error#144502
Conversation
With one exception, all "stealing" functions also steal on error, but it makes sense to note this in each case.
Co-authored-by: Peter Bierma <zintensitydev@gmail.com>
Noted. |
|
I wasn't aware of that discussion. Thanks for the tip. I'm still not convinced that putting quotation marks around it is the right approach; these are scare quotes, which are used for ideas that are disputed or skeptical, so I think it's a bit of a contradiction to put scare quotes around "steal" when we seem to have coined the term. It makes us seem like we don't trust the term or are taking it from somewhere else, which isn't true, unless I'm missing some history here. |
|
AFAIK, “we” minted it but the few-decades-older “we” don't like the term any more. I personally think the term is fine (“transfer ownership” is better, but too unwieldy). But that means I need to be careful :) |
Yeah, that's fine, but this PR does add quotes in places where there weren't quotes before. |
|
Yes, it makes all references use the same style. |
|
Would it be okay to keep things the same style here, and only add the link? The rest of the PR looks good to me otherwise. |
|
Since the term is added to the glossary, I don't think that it's worth it to put it in quotes. |
|
I spent some time reconciling this with capi-workgroup/problems#11, and ended up with a slightly different reason for putting the term in quotes. Think of it as a placeholder; a TODO. The proper term is transfer ownership. But, defining ownership is a larger change, since I'd like to not limit it to Here's a draft: main...encukou:cpython:ownership-docs#diff-dfb52ee6e68075f904da6e69ed1799c5cbf1185c279968a807787d69ae2e8cf5R1152 I'd prefer putting this smaller imperfect (and quote-ful) change in now, but, well, it can wait for a rewrite. |
vstinner
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. I would prefer avoiding quotes around "steal", but I don't want to block the change just for that.
|
This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. |
|
I believe the revision of this document is very valuable, as the issue may have led to a large number of potential software defects. ytsaurus/ytsaurus#1713 (1) 2.2k stars |
|
Ping. What's the current progress of this PR? |
|
The status is It's not the highest priority for me, and the last few times I got to it there was a conflict or CI failure to fix. |
Documentation build overview
12 files changed ·
|
|
Now the stars aligned :) |
|
Thanks @encukou for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13, 3.14, 3.15. |
|
Sorry, @encukou, I could not cleanly backport this to |
|
GH-152771 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.15 branch. |
|
Sorry, @encukou, I could not cleanly backport this to |
|
GH-152772 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--144502.org.readthedocs.build/