On 2/2/06, Jason Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I will just make a point that the html/online docs are much more > complete than what's included in the docstrings. Use the re module as > an example. > > >>> import re > >>> help(re) > > only gives you the error class (and not the match class) and short > blurbs about each method, whereas > http://docs.python.org/lib/module-re.html gives you syntax, examples, > and lots of other really useful stuff.
Well, having not used python a whole lot, I was not aware that some modules had poor documentation. But still, doesn't the pydoc output actually give you a link to the online page regardless? > > > Also, it provides corresponding files for vim and emacs. I found > > > them by accident while browsing a slackware live cd. I think that > > > the docs are useful enough to be provided as a package. And it will > > > be convenient too. Well, even the expert ( i am not one ) needs to > > > refer the documentation sometimes. :) > > > > Hmm, what does this mean? It includes actual vim helpfiles? What > > does one gain over directly using pydoc? > > If the docs are the same, then the argument is the same as man v info > > - we don't need yet-another-copy of the same documentation, which > > works fine on arch (see above screenshot) > > And what if the included docs are different than what's given to you by > pydoc? Hmm, in that case, I think that would warrant seperate plugin packages for emacs and vim, etc - I mean, for someone who uses, um, IDLE, they're useless, and to emacs users the vim stuff is useless... _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
