Aahz wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> Why? If wikipedia can do without moderation (for most pages) then why
>> couldn't the Python docs?
>
> If we're strictly talking about user comments, I won't disagree, but the
> main docs do need to be "authoritative" IMO.
>
> Asi
Georg Brandl wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> As far as noise goes, "new in X" is minor compared to all the stuff
>> that's documented that the average user never needs... :-)
>
> And, of course, the "new in 2.x" could be formatted less space-consuming,
> perhaps to the right of the method name
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 1/21/06, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On this page, 8 of 30 entries have a 'new in' comment. For anyone with no
>> interest in the past, these constitute noise. I wonder if for 3.0, the
>> timer can be reset and the docs start clean again. To keep them b
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Why? If wikipedia can do without moderation (for most pages) then why
> couldn't the Python docs?
If we're strictly talking about user comments, I won't disagree, but the
main docs do need to be "authoritative" IMO.
Aside to Georg: your messages
The "data:" scheme would be a good one.
Bill
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 21:43 +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> >
> >> I don't believe this belongs in 2.4, since it can, actually, break code.
> >> Code that depends on the current situation, _TestCase__attributename.
> >> Fragil
On 1/21/06, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On this page, 8 of 30 entries have a 'new in' comment. For anyone with no
> interest in the past, these constitute noise. I wonder if for 3.0, the
> timer can be reset and the docs start clean again. To keep them backwards
> compatible, they w
>> http://effbot.org/lib/os.path.join
On this page, 8 of 30 entries have a 'new in' comment. For anyone with no
interest in the past, these constitute noise. I wonder if for 3.0, the
timer can be reset and the docs start clean again. To keep them backwards
compatible, they would also have to
On 1/21/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What Fredrik hacks together there (http://www.effbot.org/lib) is very
> impressive. I especially like the "permalinks" in this style:
>
> http://effbot.org/lib/os.path.join
Which (despite having "perma" in its name) evaporates and leaves
behind
Georg Brandl wrote:
> That's okay, but it may be much work to find out which of them use relative
> paths, fragments, queries and parameters. Is there a list of these features
> somewhere?
Not that I know of. Collecting a list of missing schemes in the file
might be a good start already.
Regard
Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:37, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > The registered ones:
> >
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes
>
> I think that these should be supported.
That's okay, but it may be much work to find out which of them use relative
paths, fra
What Fredrik hacks together there (http://www.effbot.org/lib) is very
impressive. I especially like the "permalinks" in this style:
http://effbot.org/lib/os.path.join
What I would suggest (for any new doc system) is a "split" view: on the left,
the normal text, on the right, an area with only t
On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:37, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> The registered ones:
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes
I think that these should be supported.
> Not sure whether urn parsing would also be desirable:
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces
The "hdl" sche
Georg Brandl wrote:
> For 2.5, this would be a good opportunity to add additional schemes
> to urlparse. Candidates?
The registered ones:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes
Not sure whether urn parsing would also be desirable:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces
Regards,
Ma
On Jan 21, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> In that case, what I think we ought to do is not add the DP paths
> (i.e. /opt/local) to setup.py specifically to get its readline, but
> instead to pick up any libraries that happen to be in DP in
> preference to those in OSX by default. If tha
On Jan 18, 2006, at 8:24 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> The import of the Ghostscript case is that the FSF considers a
> Makefile stanza clearly intended to cause linkage to a GPL library,
> even if optional and supplied by the user, to create a work derived
> from that library. A "GNU readline
15 matches
Mail list logo
