[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> I'd like to help out cleaning up the Python3.0 documentation. There are a
> lot of little leftovers from 2.x that are no longer true. (mentions of
> long, callable() etc.)
I've applied the first four patches, thank you!
Georg
--
Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt ind
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
>> In the 2.x docs, all versionadded strings should stay. But IMO in the
>> 3.0 docs we should get rid of them all. If you want compatibility
>> information, look at the 2.6 docs (those should also mention things
>> that are changing in 3.0).
>
> I agree. People who target
> In the 2.x docs, all versionadded strings should stay. But IMO in the
> 3.0 docs we should get rid of them all. If you want compatibility
> information, look at the 2.6 docs (those should also mention things
> that are changing in 3.0).
I agree. People who target 3.x need to test anyway if they
On 9/26/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Guido> I fully support removing all historic references from the 3.0
> Guido> language manual.
>
> By historic I assume you mean references to 2.x modules, classes, functions,
> etc which are no longer present. One thing I would
Guido> I fully support removing all historic references from the 3.0
Guido> language manual.
By historic I assume you mean references to 2.x modules, classes, functions,
etc which are no longer present. One thing I would suggest is that the more
recent versionadded strings be kept. At t
I fully support removing all historic references from the 3.0 language
manual. Please do help out! You can just start putting patches ("svn
diff") into bugs.python.org; typically Georg gets to these very
quickly. Do use subversion, not the distributed tarbal (which was out
of date by the time it wa
