Message298462
[Serhiy]
> Wasn't this change a mistake? Seems Mark opposed to it.
Shrug. It seemed unnecessary to me to explicitly support `None` as a second argument, but it's done now; reverting the change at this point would do more harm than good.
So indeed there's a minor inaccuracy in the docs here. I'd suggest replacing the sentence identified with:
"The return value is an integer if *ndigits* is omitted or *None*. Otherwise the return value has the same type as *number*." |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2017-07-17 07:17:00 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients:
+ mark.dickinson, rhettinger, docs@python, serhiy.storchaka, steve.dower, George K |
2017-07-17 07:17:00 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1500275820.45.0.328303262358.issue30940@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2017-07-17 07:17:00 | mark.dickinson | link | issue30940 messages |
2017-07-17 07:17:00 | mark.dickinson | create | |
|