Backport of 1.26:

Fix the problem addressed by patch

[ 819012 ] Fix for former/latter confusion in Extending documentation

although not by using supplied patch.

Though this backport actually includes the fix that caused the problem
in the first place!

diff --git a/Doc/ext/extending.tex b/Doc/ext/extending.tex
index 0761d974da0df26b34d50df18c641cb0fa643b95..1a43e1e1dbaa242ce11671277914a00e419f0a7c 100644 (file)
--- a/Doc/ext/extending.tex
+++ b/Doc/ext/extending.tex
@@ -1174,14 +1174,12 @@ Examples (to the left the call, to the right the resulting Python value):
 \section{Reference Counts
          \label{refcounts}}
 
-In languages like C or \Cpp, the programmer is responsible for
-dynamic allocation and deallocation of memory on the heap.  In C,
-this is done using the functions \cfunction{malloc()} and
-\cfunction{free()}.  In \Cpp, the operators \keyword{new} and
-\keyword{delete} are used with essentially the same meaning; they are
-actually implemented using \cfunction{malloc()} and
-\cfunction{free()}, so we'll restrict the following discussion to the
-latter.
+In languages like C or \Cpp, the programmer is responsible for dynamic
+allocation and deallocation of memory on the heap.  In C, this is done
+using the functions \cfunction{malloc()} and \cfunction{free()}.  In
+\Cpp, the operators \keyword{new} and \keyword{delete} are used with
+essentially the same meaning so we'll restrict the following
+discussion to the C case.
 
 Every block of memory allocated with \cfunction{malloc()} should
 eventually be returned to the pool of available memory by exactly one