On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 07:45:13 -0600,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just because that audience is small doesn't mean they are unimportant.
> There are currently four actively maintained/developed implementations of
> Python. A common language reference manual is important for them, and
> indirectly for the people who use the four implementations.
They're not unimportant, but I don't think the reference manual *is*
important to them because they've gotten this far with an outdated
one; the code may be resource enough. This is why I think that the
effort expended to update a document aimed at them might be better
spent on something more widely useful.
I remembered another problem from the weekend with documenting
new-style classes. It seemed reasonable to begin with PEP 252, and
see if any bits of the PEP can be migrated into the RefGuide, but then
I found this comment in the abstract:
[Editor's note: the ideas described in this PEP have been
incorporated into Python. The PEP no longer accurately
describes the implementation.]
So now we're *really* stuck. The RefGuide doesn't describe the rules;
the PEP no longer describes them either; and probably only Guido can
write the new text for the RefGuide. (Or are the semantics the same
and only some trivial details are different?)
--amk
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
