On 2/2/06, Jason Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 14:49:34 -0600 > Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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? > > I believe they do, as long as you look at the module. > > My reason for wanting something like this (and it's not that big of a > deal even because, as I said, you can download all of the docs in HTML > format) is for offline development. Having a URL doesn't help me there.
I'd agree that some documentation is poor and I've noticed this too when working on Python, but this kinda sounds like a band-aid fix. What would probably be better is pursuing adding the missing information into the official Python docs already distributed... though I admittedly have no idea how this kind of stuff works with the Python crew; maybe they try to keep the system docs terse for some reason. Anyway, I think moving for a new package or including the HTML docs with the Arch package would be option 2. -- http://aconkling.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
