On 1/21/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What Fredrik hacks together there (http://www.effbot.org/lib) is very
> impressive. I especially like the "permalinks" in this style:
>
> http://effbot.org/lib/os.path.join

Which (despite having "perma" in its name) evaporates and leaves
behind a link to os.path.html#join.

> What I would suggest (for any new doc system) is a "split" view: on the left,
> the normal text, on the right, an area with only the headings, functions,
> example and "see also" links (which preferably stays in sight). This way, you
> always keep the outline in view.

Can you mock that up a bit? I'm somewhat confused about what you're
requesting, and also worried that it would take up too much horizontal
space. (Despite that monitors are wider than tall, horizontal real
estate feels more scarce than vertical, because horizontal scrolling
is such a pain.)

> Of course, I wouldn't say no to a user-commenting system, but this would have 
> to
> be moderated.

Why? If wikipedia can do without moderation (for most pages)  then why
couldn't the Python docs?

> What I'm also curious about regarding the current docs, why are optional
> arguments in function declarations not written in Python style?

I'm assuming you're asking why we use

  foo(a[, b[, c]])

instead of

  foo(a, b=1, c=2)

? I can see several reasons; arguments with default values aren't
necessarily usable keyword arguments (at least not if they
function/method is implemented in C); the default value isn't always
relevant (or is dynamic, or is a huge expression); and square brackets
are the standard way in computer manuals to indicate optional parts of
syntax.

--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to