Author mark.dickinson
Recipients George K, docs@python, mark.dickinson, r.david.murray, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, steve.dower
Date 2017-07-27.17:08:47
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
> is it worth to mention explicitly that round(number) and round(number, None) > delegate to number.__round__()?

Yes, if we can find a non-clunky wording that does that. The current wording does seem to misleadingly suggest that the delegation to `__round__` only happens for the two-argument version of round.

How about just:

> For a general Python object ``number``, ``round`` delegates to
> ``number.__round__``.
Date User Action Args
2017-07-27 17:08:47mark.dickinsonsetrecipients: + mark.dickinson, rhettinger, r.david.murray, docs@python, serhiy.storchaka, steve.dower, George K
2017-07-27 17:08:47mark.dickinsonsetmessageid: <>
2017-07-27 17:08:47mark.dickinsonlinkissue30940 messages
2017-07-27 17:08:47mark.dickinsoncreate