Hello all, I'm an author working with Apress on my second title, Pro Python. It expands on the Python-level chapter I included in my first title, Pro Django, which received overwhelmingly positive feedback. Basically, I'm writing for people who are already familiar with Python, but haven't looked into some of its more advanced features, like decorators, magic methods, metaclasses and the like. I'm trying to focus heavily on examples throughout, finishing up with a complete build-up of a Django-esque declarative framework for processing CSV files.
One of the main questions I find myself asking, though, is how much should I repeat from other works? I don't want to rewrite the wheel, but I'm having trouble drawing the line. For example, chapter 2 of Pro Django covered my Python features, focusing mostly on decorators and metaclasses. I obviously want to cover those same topics in Pro Python, but I tried very hard to expand on them in much greater detail--particularly with regard to the examples--so that it wasn't a direct copy. I also included a really basic plugin framework I wrote up on my blog a couple years ago, with some added features and a whole new write-up. The frustrating thing about doing this is that I feel like I'm torn between copying something that's already available and throwing away something that's really good. Neither of them seems like a good way to go, so the answer must be somewhere in the middle, but I'm having a lot of trouble finding it. Is it enough to rewrite the description of a piece of code, so that it's perhaps more clear or more relevant to the audience at hand? Or is the author expected to expand on the code itself in some way, offering up some unique value (feature? optimization? simplification?) that wasn't available in the original? -Marty _______________________________________________ Python-authors mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-authors
