Cleanup grating unmodern gender wording text in old PEPs that were pointed out in #855.
This commit is contained in:
parent
fb046e16c6
commit
da9bf5f9a1
|
@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ must continue to call ``Py_Initialize()``, and for multi-threaded
|
|||
applications, ``PyEval_InitThreads()``. The reason for this is that
|
||||
the first thread to call ``PyEval_InitThreads()`` is nominated as the
|
||||
"main thread" by Python, and so forcing the extension author to
|
||||
specify the main thread (by forcing her to make this first call)
|
||||
specify the main thread (by requiring them to make this first call)
|
||||
removes ambiguity. As ``Py_Initialize()`` must be called before
|
||||
``PyEval_InitThreads()``, and as both of these functions currently
|
||||
support being called multiple times, the burden this places on
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ current common practice:
|
|||
|
||||
- Subclassability - the ``Path`` object can be extended to support
|
||||
paths other than filesystem paths. The programmer does not need
|
||||
to learn a new API, but can reuse his or her knowledge of Path
|
||||
to learn a new API, but can reuse their knowledge of Path
|
||||
to deal with the extended class.
|
||||
|
||||
- With all related functionality in one place, the right approach
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ Extra package indexes
|
|||
|
||||
It is obvious that some packages will not be uploaded to PyPI, whether
|
||||
because they are private or whether because the project maintainer
|
||||
runs his own server where people might get the project package.
|
||||
runs their own server where people might get the project package.
|
||||
However, it is strongly encouraged that a public package index follows
|
||||
PyPI and Distutils protocols.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ verification of PyPI distributions signed with private cryptographic
|
|||
keys stored on PyPI. Distributions uploaded by developers are signed by PyPI
|
||||
and immediately available for download. A possible future extension to this
|
||||
PEP, discussed in :pep:`480`, proposes the maximum security model and allows
|
||||
a developer to sign for his/her project. Developer keys are not stored online:
|
||||
a developer to sign for their project. Developer keys are not stored online:
|
||||
therefore, projects are safe from PyPI compromises.
|
||||
|
||||
The minimum security model requires no action from a developer and protects
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ documentation for the ABC. These standard semantic definitions are
|
|||
not enforced, but are strongly recommended.
|
||||
|
||||
Like all other things in Python, these promises are in the nature of a
|
||||
gentlemen's agreement, which in this case means that while the
|
||||
friendly agreement, which in this case means that while the
|
||||
language does enforce some of the promises made in the ABC, it is up
|
||||
to the implementer of the concrete class to insure that the remaining
|
||||
ones are kept.
|
||||
|
@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ MutableComposableSet, HashableComposableSet.
|
|||
|
||||
The dilemma here is that we'd rather have fewer ABCs, but then what
|
||||
should a user do who needs a less refined ABC? Consider e.g. the
|
||||
plight of a mathematician who wants to define his own kind of
|
||||
plight of a mathematician who wants to define their own kind of
|
||||
Transcendental numbers, but also wants float and int to be considered
|
||||
Transcendental. :pep:`3141` originally proposed to patch float.__bases__
|
||||
for that purpose, but there are some good reasons to keep the built-in
|
||||
|
|
13
pep-3127.txt
13
pep-3127.txt
|
@ -239,13 +239,13 @@ Assume the rare complete newcomer to computing who *does*, either
|
|||
occasionally or as a matter of habit, use leading zeros for decimal
|
||||
numbers. Python could either:
|
||||
|
||||
a) silently do the wrong thing with his numbers, as it does now;
|
||||
a) silently do the wrong thing with their numbers, as it does now;
|
||||
|
||||
b) immediately disabuse him of the notion that this is viable syntax
|
||||
b) immediately disabuse them of the notion that this is viable syntax
|
||||
(and yes, the SyntaxWarning should be more gentle than it
|
||||
currently is, but that is a subject for a different PEP); or
|
||||
|
||||
c) let him continue to think that computers are happy with
|
||||
c) let them continue to think that computers are happy with
|
||||
multi-digit decimal integers which start with "0".
|
||||
|
||||
Some people passionately believe that (c) is the correct answer,
|
||||
|
@ -253,12 +253,11 @@ and they would be absolutely right if we could be sure that new
|
|||
users will never blossom and grow and start writing AJAX applications.
|
||||
|
||||
So while a new Python user may (currently) be mystified at the
|
||||
delayed discovery that his numbers don't work properly, we can
|
||||
fix it by explaining to him immediately that Python doesn't like
|
||||
delayed discovery that their numbers don't work properly, we can
|
||||
fix it by explaining to them immediately that Python doesn't like
|
||||
leading zeros (hopefully with a reasonable message!), or we can
|
||||
delegate this teaching experience to the JavaScript interpreter
|
||||
in the Internet Explorer browser, and let him try to debug his
|
||||
issue there.
|
||||
in the browser, and let them try to debug their issue there.
|
||||
|
||||
Supported radices
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue