Agreed. Is it too late to also attempt to bring Doc/ref/*.tex completely up to date and remove confusing language from it? Ideally that's the authoritative Language Reference -- admittedly it's been horribly out of date but needn't stay so forever.
--Guido On 5/1/06, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:54:00PM +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > http://pyref.infogami.com/ > > I find this work very exciting. Time hasn't been kind to the > reference guide -- as language features were added to 2.x, not > everything has been applied to the RefGuide, and users will probably > have been forced to read a mixture of the RefGuide and various PEPs. > > The Reference Guide tries to provide a formal specification of the > language. A while ago I wondered if we needed a "User's Guide" that > explains all the keywords, lists special methods, and that sort of > thing, in a style that isn't as formal and as complete as the > Reference Guide. Now maybe we don't -- maybe the RefGuide can be > tidied bit by bit into something more readable. > > (Or are the two goals -- completeness and readability -- > incompossible, unable to be met at the same time by one document?) > > --amk > _______________________________________________ > 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/guido%40python.org > -- --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
