Author rhettinger
Recipients PaulSFO, mark.dickinson, miss-islington, paul.moore, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, steven.daprano
Date 2018-05-27.17:58:56
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1527443936.17.0.682650639539.issue33494@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> or, for a minimal doc change, change this sentence:
> "For example, the relative weights [10, 5, 30, 5] are 
> equivalent to the cumulative weights [10, 15, 45, 50],"
>
> to:
> "For example, the relative call 'weights[10, 5, 30, 5]' 
> is equivalent to the cumulative call 'cum_weights[10, 15, 45, 50]',"

Sorry, that doesn't seem like an improvement at all to me.  Adding "call" just makes the sentence read awkwardly.

Also, this week I did some user testing on the existing docs and didn't find a single case of misreading what "cumulative weights" meant.

I'm marking this as closed.  The suggestion was appreciated but adding additional input checks would defeat the entire purpose of the feature.  The user testing suggest that the docs are okay as-is (and there are additional examples in the recipes section below).
History
Date User Action Args
2018-05-27 17:58:56rhettingersetrecipients: + rhettinger, paul.moore, mark.dickinson, steven.daprano, serhiy.storchaka, miss-islington, PaulSFO
2018-05-27 17:58:56rhettingersetmessageid: <1527443936.17.0.682650639539.issue33494@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2018-05-27 17:58:56rhettingerlinkissue33494 messages
2018-05-27 17:58:56rhettingercreate