Fredrik Lundh wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The OP points out an ambiguity in the docs, and as usual, > > gets told he can't read, etc. How typical. > > where did anyone tell the OP that he can't read?
"it could be that the tutorial author expected you to read chapter 8 before you read chapter 9,..." "...because some random guy on a newsgroup read the tutorial backwards..." > it's pretty clear > that you have trouble reading things without mixing them up with > your own preconceptions, but we already knew that.111 > > Maybe if comments like this were encouraged and acted upon > > do you think your posts would look any different if we replaced you > with a markov generator and fed it with your old posts ? > > if you want to contribute, contribute. a new tutorial would be great. > get to work! I don't want to, and probably couldn't, write a tutorial as good as what is already there. But what I can do is report problems I find when using it, and make suggestions about how to avoid those problems. For example, the sentence in question, "There are two new valid (semantic) forms for the raise statement: " could be replaced with "There are two other forms for the raise statement in addition to the one described in chapter 8:" or "Two new forms for the raise statement were introduced in Python verion 2.x:" depending on what the meaning of "new" is in the original sentence. (I'm still not sure, but your post implies it is the former.) But the perception I get here, from responses like yours, is that such suggestions are unwelcome, and unlikely to be acted upon. I gather corrections of factual errors are welcome, but stylistic, or organizational ones are not. And the latter kind of changes, applied extensively to all the docs, are what will make a big improvement. Difficult at best, but absolutely impossible if you and the other powers-that-be are happy with the status-quo. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
