gh-100101: Clarify documentation of zip()'s strict option

[JustAnotherArchivist]

Issue: #100101

• Straightforward docs clarification change, no news entry
• Needs application to the 3.10 and 3.11 docs.

• Issue: Unclear documentation of zip()'s strict option #100101

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for python-cpython-preview ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	d60b638
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/python-cpython-preview/deploys/63918b34d3e53b0009a7191d
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-100103--python-cpython-preview.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

[JustAnotherArchivist]

Looks like doctest does not support having both output and an exception in an example, but that's the entire point here: showing that the loop body is executed up to the point where the error condition (one iterable being exhausted) is hit. Any ideas?

[slateny]

You could try a try/except and print the exception instead (assuming it does work).

[JustAnotherArchivist]

Yeah, I suppose that would work around it, but it'd also add significant noise to the example (five lines instead of two). :-/

[JustAnotherArchivist]

For reference, this is the old open issue about doctest not supporting this: #65382. (Thanks, han-solo!) Looks like I have finally found a real-world stdlib use case for this feature. :-)

[slateny]

In that case, maybe just a comment above the line saying what it'll print (or the length) would work to be less noisy, though at that point the output wouldn't exactly match the display so also not too certain about that.

[JustAnotherArchivist]

The only alternative I can think of is disabling the test for that example using # doctest: +SKIP, accompanied by a comment about that issue (not certain, but I think rST supports that).

[JustAnotherArchivist]

There is in fact precedent for skipping such doctests (although I'm not entirely sure why it was necessary there), so I'm going to propose doing the same thing here and enabling the test again in the future when doctest gains that functionality. In my opinion, a clear example of the exact zip(..., strict=True) behaviour is more important than a passing doctest in this case.

[miss-islington]

Thanks @JustAnotherArchivist for the PR, and @brandtbucher for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.10, 3.11.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

[brandtbucher]

Thanks!

[bedevere-bot]

GH-100594 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch.

[bedevere-bot]

GH-100595 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch.