Ron Adam wrote: > I agree and think the "for language lawyers" should be changed to > something that encourages people to read it instead of encouraging them > to avoid it. Maybe: > > "The Python language structure for everyone". > > If it's hard to read and understand, then that can and should be fixed.
Hm, actually that was not my point. I think the writers of the Language Reference already did a very good job. The precise and "authoritative" language reference covering all the subtleties and special cases will never be fun to read. You would rather learn the use of the keywords and the basic rules and magic attributes of the language from a good tutorial or handbook, and look up the Language Reference really seldomly. You can program quite well in Python without ever having looked into the official Language Reference. Newbies should not think they need to read it in order to start programming. However, it is different with the Lib Reference. This is used on a daily basis, you will often look into it, Python users are accustomed to it, and it should invite readers to really browse and read and learn more about the power of the batteries included. My point was that since users are more accustomed to and prefer to use the Lib reference as their first source of information rather than the Language reference, it should not be reluctant to mention some things which strictly speaking belong to the Language Reference. In some cases, it can also point to the Lanugage Reference for the details (and it does so already). -- Christoph -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
