On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 10:22:47 -0400 Philip Semanchuk <phi...@semanchuk.com> wrote: > > The tutorial isn't meant as an exhaustive lesson on every single Python > > feature. > > I agree, and I don't expect otherwise. My point was that if the > tutorial doesn't mention a feature, the only other place to learn about > it (on python.org) is the language ref. Some people might think the > language ref is a fine place to direct newcomers to Python. I don't.
I don't think that anyone was suggesting the reference as the first place to send newcomers. You send them there when they need something beyond the basics. I think the only issue here is that operators are pretty basic and that specific thing is missing in the tutorial. It would be a mistake to write a whole new document because the tutorial is missing one thing. Better would be to propose an operators section. > I realize that the Python Foundation doesn't have infinite resources > to work with, so maybe they'd love to create & maintain a more readable > language reference if they had time/money/people. I don't hear anyone > talk about it, though. Lots of people talk. Action, not so much. How about you? Are you ready to start writing a new reference manual? How about just that one section on operators that's missing from the tutorial. Remember, Python is "we," not "they." -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <da...@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
