On 12/30/20 2:52 AM, JJ Merelo wrote:
I'm also requesting you to take these totally improductive questions
(and subsequent discussions) elsewhere. I'm not participating in it any
more.
JJ,
You are the one who hosed me and personally insulted me
as well rather than either answering the question directly,
explaining why you would not, or just not answering at all.
Now for my response to the documentation:
As stated On 12/28/20 4:54 AM, by Richard Hainsworth:
The Raku community has come to the concensus that there
is a distinction between Tutorials and Reference, and
that the Documentation site should contain both.
Tutorials define how to use some aspect of Raku, with
example text and explanation. Reference tries to cover
as much of the language as possible, covering all the
methods/subs/names/types etc as possible. Reference is
written for a person who already knows how to program
and who uses Raku. The assumption is that if a person
reading a reference does not understand some term, then
s/he will search in the documentation on that term to
understand it.
And as stated on 12/29/20 7:05 AM, by Peter Scott:
We explained that there are two types of documentation,
and that is the target audience for *reference*
documentation. The other type of documentation is
tutorial, which *is* for people trying to learn Raku.
Both as well explained.
You are a teacher and should have know better than send
me links that are not intended for my skill level. Me reminding your of
that is not a rant (another insult).
I personally would like the "reference" to be written
for all skill levels, along the lines of Perl 5's Perl
Docs, but its is not. The decision was not mine. It
is what it is. You need to work within the framework
of what is, just as I do.
And I still think that an explaition of the line I
asked about would be a fascinating insight into the
inner working of Raku.
Now I will go to the Turkish section of Netflix
and see it they can help.
-T
