Travis E. Oliphant wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > - I guess I should just buy the documentation. I don't like this idea, > > because I think it's counter-productive to the project to have payware > > docs (would Python be successful if you had to buy the documentation? I > > don't think so), but that's the way this project goes. > > It's probably better to call it "complete documentation." Normal > open-source documentation is available from http://www.scipy.org. There > are lots of people who have helped it. I had to do something to at > least pretend to justify the time NumPy took me to the people who care > about how I spend my time (including my family). This was the best I > could come up with.
Given the quality of python's (free) documentation and how good it's been for a very long time, it's bit ironic to be using the phrase "normal open-source documentation" on this mailing list. Numeric python, which numpy aspires to be a replacement for, has perfectly reasonable documentation. It wasn't perfect, but it told you pretty much everything you needed to know to get started, use the system, and build extension modules. I guess this set my expectations for NumPy. > Or just ask on the mailing lists, use the numpy.oldnumeric interface > (the differences are all documented in the first few pages of my book > which is available for free now). "Ask on the mailing lists" is viable for the occasional question or detail, but it's not really an efficient way to get started with a system. At least not for me. But that's fine, I have something that works (numeric), and I can do what I need to do there. -greg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
