SÃbastien BoisgÃrault wrote: > > "Manual" == scope of the *Lib Reference* + informal style of the > *Tutorial*, > > Right ?
Yes! That sounds good. "Informal style" yes, but "tutorial style" no. I shouldn't be there to teach like the tutorial, but for reference. And of course, the manual shouldn't cover the modules like the lib reference does, but just the language itself and "built in" types. Ok, here is a concrete example of what I like about the PHP manual and what people I know have had a hard time with Python. Go to the PHP manual page. Type "array" in the search input field. It comes back with a page that briefly describes arrays in PHP and then lists all the functions that have to do with arrays. Contrast that with Python. First off there is no "search" mechanism built into the documentation page (yes I know you can google it, but that just doesn't feel right). Second off...well, my argument sucks because I apparently I haven't looked at the Python tutorial recently. But before, if you looked up "lists" in the tutorial, you got a tutorial style page on them. If you wanted to see their methods, you had to completely back out of the tutorial, go to the library reference, then find the section on "mutable sequences". How unintuitive is that? But like I said, the tutorial is better now. It lists the methods on list and there is a link in the dictionary section to the "mapping types" section in the library reference. Oh well, I guess all is well. -- C > Consider non-official manuals such as: > + http://diveintopython.org/toc/index.html (free) > + python in a nutshell > + python cookbook > + etc. > > Cheers, > > SB > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
