(original) (raw)
Hi Eli,\> � � � � Executing the event means executing \`\`action(\*argument, \*\*kwargs)\`\`.
\> � � - � \*argument\* must be a sequence holding the parameters for \*action\*.
\> � � - � \*kwargs\* must be a dictionary holding the keyword parameters for \*action\*.
\> � � + � Optional \*argument\* argument must be a sequence holding the parameters
\> � � + � for \*action\* if any used.
\> � � + � Optional \*kwargs\* argument must be a dictionary holding the keyword
\> � � + � parameters for \*action\* if any used.
\>
\>
\> I don't see how this change improves the documentation. To keep the grammar
\> correct and just state that the arguments are optional, I would simply replace
\> "must be" by "is". For example:
\>
\> � \*argument\* is a sequence holding the parameters for \*action\*.
\>
\> This is short, and since the function signature clearly shows that argument has
\> a default value, I think it conveys the meaning it should.
I'm sure we non-native speakers are fine with any improvements you can make
during commit review.
Georg
Georg,
I also wrote a private email to Serhiy proposing to help, but since you brought this up here: I think that my comment was constructive. What should have I done differently? Go ahead and modify the phrasing in a separate commit? I see a couple of problems with that:
1. It can be somewhat disrespectful to a new committer, and I wanted to reach a consensus first.
2. Serhiy diligently committed this into 3 or 4 different Python branches. With all due respect, going through the merge/push dance is far above the effort I'm willing to invest in this.
Eli
P.S. I would argue that you are more native-speaker than myself w.r.t. English :-)
�