<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Fredrik Lundh wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> 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,..."
This actually acknowledges an ability to read ;-) -- that just was not exercised sufficiently (in his opinion) ... > 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:" That said, and without looking at the context in the doc, this looks like an improvement. > or > > "Two new forms for the raise statement were introduced > in Python verion 2.x:" This is incorrect, I believe. > 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.) I agree that the current text seems ambiguous. > But the perception I get here, from responses like yours, > is that such suggestions are unwelcome, and unlikely > to be acted upon. FL is not the main doc maintainer. Even if you were to be correct about his views, premature generalization is the source of much error. > 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. If you wish to become a volunteer Python improver, let me know either here or privately and I will respond with a suggestion and an offer. Terry Jan Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
