From af6034cd632b924d2e6c6072809d5c17dd0bcdae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vinta Chen Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 19:16:15 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] docs: replace unsupported DiskCache comparison The guide claimed DiskCache required less effort than every other Python caching library without comparative evidence. Co-Authored-By: Codex --- website/data/category_intros/caching.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/website/data/category_intros/caching.md b/website/data/category_intros/caching.md index cf768678..c613b472 100644 --- a/website/data/category_intros/caching.md +++ b/website/data/category_intros/caching.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -Expensive function calls get cached in memory by one cachetools decorator. On disk, with no server, no Python caching library asks less of you than DiskCache. +Expensive function calls get cached in memory by one cachetools decorator. DiskCache stores cached data on local disk, with no server to run. How to choose: