gh-103373: Improve documentation for __mro_entries__
#103374
Conversation
|
Thanks @AlexWaygood for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.11. |
|
GH-103376 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch. |
…H-103374) (cherry picked from commit 0ba0ca0) Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 0ba0ca0) Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <[email protected]>
| :class:`type`, then an ``__mro_entries__`` method is searched on the base. | ||
| If an ``__mro_entries__`` method is found, the base is substituted with the | ||
| result of a call to ``__mro_entries__`` when creating the class. | ||
| The method is called with the original bases tuple, and must return a tuple |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was merged before I had a chance to review, but just to note for the future, the standard Python docs convention is to always italicize parameter names (*bases*), especially on first use.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the review! "The original bases tuple" here refers to the object that is passed to the parameter named bases rather than the word "bases" referring to the parameter named bases itself — so I don't think that convention applies here. But if this is confusing then maybe the sentence needs to be reworded — so this is useful feedback, thanks :)
I was planning on doing a followup PR anyway, adding links from other parts of the docs to this section in the data model. I'll see if I can address this as part of the followup PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see, thanks—I wasn't totally sure about that. In that case, then, it might be helpful, then, to explicitly mention the bases parameter somewhere relevant, particularly for readers scanning the docs looking for its description.
__mro_entries__#103373