On Mar 27, 8:30 am, Jan Danielsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello all, > > <IMHO> > > Although I have encountered many modules that have impressed me with > regards to what they can actually do -- too be perfectly honest, it's > very rare that I become impressed by the _interfaces_ to the modules. > > Using a new module is normally, with my - admittedly - limited > experience, a pain. It's not just about reading the reference material, > and then just use it. You have to figure out how the developer who wrote > the module was thinking. Often there's a (more or less) natural way to > do things, and unfortunately that's not how module developers do it. > It's not a major issue to me personally, since the important part is > that the module can perform its function. > > But then there are a few modules that I just love to use, because > they are so "clean" from interface to function. Among them I can't help > mentioning optparse. > > Yesterday I found another module which I fell in love with: Python > Cryptography Toolkit (http://www.amk.ca/python/writing/pycrypt/). > > It's just so ... elegant, and functional. > > </IMHO> > > -- > Kind regards, > Jan Danielsson
Yeah. I've noticed that myself. There are tons of good modules, but a lot of the docs are lousy. What's really annoying is that everyone says that so-and-so is well documented. I love Python, but I wish when they said some module was well documented, they meant that the docs were understandable (to n00bs) as well. Mike -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
