http://docs.python.org/library/decimal.html

In 9.4.2, "Decimal objects", some of the methods mention the first and second parameters, when really it should be "self" and the argument, usually named "other" and sometimes something more specific. These include:

compare_total
copy_sign
next_toward
quantize (argument is exp)
rotate
scaleb
shift

It looks this is left over from where the same-named functions are described in the "Context objects" section.

Note that usually 'self' is not included in the arguments of methods.  The 3.3 doc correctly uses e.g. copy_sign(other).  A 'd.' could also be added so that the end result looks like:
  d.copy_sign(other)
but it's not mandatory (if done, all the other methods should be updated as well).

I'm not talking about the method itself but rather the descriptive text. For example:

copy_sign(other)

    Return a copy of the first operand with the sign set to be the same as the sign of the second operand. 

There is no second operand, unless you consider "self" the first and "other" the second. Which of course is true inside the method, but it reads oddly as a description of the method from the outside.

Return a copy of *self* with the sign set to be the same as the sign of *other*.

seems clearer to me.

In this case using:
   d.copy_sign(other)
and then refer to 'd' and 'other' might be clearer.

I propose:

object.copy_sign(other)

    Return a copy of *object* with the sign set to be the same as the sign of *other*.

This format is most familiar to me.  But like Ezio wrote, all other methods referring to first and second operands would need to updated to refer to *object* and *other*, respectively.

Or rather:

object.copy_sign(other)

    Return a copy of *object* with the sign set to be that of *other*.

Sorry guys.  I'm new at this.  After reviewing this thread, Terry's suggestion makes the most sense to me.

Hi all,
that is my first contribution. Please let me know if all it's OK.

Thanks in advance !

Hi Francisco,

I finally found time to create a patch for this issue.  I was just saving the patch I wrote as your update arrived in my inbox.  I've included my patch for good measure.  It's better to have two proposed patches than none at all in my opinion.

Adam

I'm not sure this improves the docs.  Will give it more thought and thorough review at a later date.  Also, I will compare it to the "docstrings" in the spec itself.

Hi Adam,
I couldn’t see that from the threat context, I'm new to this and just
wanted to learn the work flow and tools so I've just picked up an
easy issue to start with. Anyway your patch seems more complete.

Sorry, I'm going to reject this one.  I applied the patch and looked at the generated docs, finding them to be less readable than before.  AFAICT, we've had no issues with people mis-reading the text as currently presented.   Also, I looked back at the underlying spec, http://speleotrove.com/decimal/daops.html , and found that it tended to refer to first and second operand.  I would like to keep our docs as close to that as possible.