* Remove the equivalence with real+imag*1j which can be incorrect in corner
cases (non-finite numbers, the sign of zeroes).
* Separately document the three roles of the constructor: parsing a string,
converting a number, and constructing a complex from components.
* Document positional-only parameters of complex(), float(), int() and bool()
as positional-only.
* Add examples for complex() and int().
* Specify the grammar of the string for complex().
* Improve the grammar of the string for float().
* Describe more explicitly the behavior when real and/or imag arguments are
complex numbers. (This will be deprecated in future.)
(cherry picked from commit ec1ba26460)
Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>
When updating the new exec note added in gh-119235 as part of the
PEP 667 general docs PR, I suggested a workaround that isn't valid.
The first half of the note is still reasonable, so just omit the invalid text.
(cherry picked from commit 31d61a75c9)
Co-authored-by: Alyssa Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com>
* expand on What's New entry for PEP 667 (including porting notes)
* define 'optimized scope' as a glossary term
* cover comprehensions and generator expressions in locals() docs
* review all mentions of "locals" in documentation (updating if needed)
* review all mentions of "f_locals" in documentation (updating if needed)
(cherry picked from commit e870c852c0)
Co-authored-by: Alyssa Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com>
DOCS: Suggest always calling exec with a globals argument and no locals argument (GH-119235)
Many users think they want a locals argument for various reasons but they do not
understand that it makes code be treated as a class definition. They do not want
their code treated as a class definition and get surprised. The reason not
to pass locals specifically is that the following code raises a `NameError`:
```py
exec("""
def f():
print("hi")
f()
def g():
f()
g()
""", {}, {})
```
The reason not to leave out globals is as follows:
```py
def t():
exec("""
def f():
print("hi")
f()
def g():
f()
g()
""")
```
(cherry picked from commit 7e1a130b8f)
Co-authored-by: Hood Chatham <roberthoodchatham@gmail.com>
* Uncomment builtin removal in pairindextypes
* Use new-style index directive ('builtin') - C API
* Use new-style index directive ('builtin') - Extending
* Use new-style index directive ('builtin') - Library
* Use new-style index directive ('builtin') - Reference
* Use new-style index directive ('builtin') - Tutorial
* Uncomment object removal in pairindextypes
* Use new-style index directive ('object') - C API
* Use new-style index directive ('object') - Library
* Use new-style index directive ('object') - Reference
* Use new-style index directive ('object') - Tutorial
* Use new-style index directive ('module') - C API
* Use new-style index directive ('module') - Library
* Use new-style index directive ('module') - Reference
* Use new-style index directive ('module') - Tutorial
* Uncomment module removal in pairindextypes
* Use new-style index directive ('module') - C API
* Use new-style index directive ('module') - Library
* Use new-style index directive ('module') - Reference
The bitwise inversion operator on bool returns the bitwise inversion of the
underlying int value; i.e. `~True == -2` such that `bool(~True) == True`.
It's a common pitfall that users mistake `~` as negation operator and actually
want `not`. Supporting `~` is an artifact of bool inheriting from int. Since there
is no real use-case for the current behavior, let's deprecate `~` on bool and
later raise an error. This removes a potential source errors for users.
Full reasoning: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/82012#issuecomment-1258705971
Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Shantanu <12621235+hauntsaninja@users.noreply.github.com>
- Remove first link to lexical definition of integer literal, since it
doesn't apply (differs in handling of leading zeros, base needs to be
explicitly specified, unicode digits are allowed)
- Better describe handling of leading zeros, unicode digits, underscores
- Base 0 does not work exactly as like a code literal, since it allows
Unicode digits. Link code literal to lexical definition of integer
literal.
All the arguments are positional-only.
The current status after #99476 seems to be to not use positional-only
markers in documentation, hence I've simply removed it.
