On 5/24/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > Last call for discussion! I'm tempted to reject this -- the ability to
> > generate optimized code based on the shortcut semantics of and/or is
> > pretty important to me.
>
> Please don't be hasty. I've had to think
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Last call for discussion! I'm tempted to reject this -- the ability to
> generate optimized code based on the shortcut semantics of and/or is
> pretty important to me.
Please don't be hasty. I've had to think about this issue
a bit.
The conclusion I've come to is that t
On 5/18/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While reviewing PEPs, I stumbled over PEP 335 ( Overloadable Boolean
> Operators) by Greg Ewing. I am of two minds of this -- on the one
> hand, it's been a long time without any working code or anything. OTOH
> it might be quite useful to e
Michael Foord schrieb:
> This subject is generating a lot of discussion and [almost entirely]
> positive feedback. It would be a great shame to run out of steam.
>
> Does it need a PEP to see a chance of it getting accepted as the formal
> documentation system? (or a pronouncement that it will n
This subject is generating a lot of discussion and [almost entirely]
positive feedback. It would be a great shame to run out of steam.
Does it need a PEP to see a chance of it getting accepted as the formal
documentation system? (or a pronouncement that it will never happen...)
Michael Foord
Ron Adam schrieb:
> Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:46:50PM -0500, Ron Adam wrote:
> >> Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> >>> So I'll be able to read the main docs for a module in a terminal
> >>> without reaching for the web browser (or info)? That would be great!
> >>>
> >>> H
Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:46:50PM -0500, Ron Adam wrote:
>> Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
>>> So I'll be able to read the main docs for a module in a terminal
>>> without reaching for the web browser (or info)? That would be great!
>>>
>>> How would pydoc decide which bit
Talin schrieb:
> Martin Blais wrote:
>> On 5/22/07, Martin Blais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> ReST works well only when there is little markup. Writing code
>>> documentation generally requires a lot of markup, you want to make
>>> variables, classes, functions, parameters, constants, etc.. (A
Nick Craig-Wood schrieb:
>> > It is missing conversion of ``comment'' at the moment as I'm sure you
>> > know...
>>
>> Sorry, what did you mean?
>
> ``comment'' produces smart quotes in latex if I remember correctly.
> You probably want to convert it somehow because it looks a bit odd on
> the
> -Original Message-
> though, not cygwin (a la bsmedberg's new MozillaBuild stuff). I just
> wish there were an autoconf alternative that wasn't as painful as
> autoconf. I have a few attempts for my purposes that are written in
> Python (an obvious bootstrapping problem for building Py
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:46:50PM -0500, Ron Adam wrote:
> Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> >So I'll be able to read the main docs for a module in a terminal
> >without reaching for the web browser (or info)? That would be great!
> >
> >How would pydoc decide which bit of docs it is going to show?
>
> P
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 05:39:38AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Nick> If you type "pydoc re" at the moment then it says in it
>
> Nick> MODULE DOCS
> Nick> http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/module-re.html
>
> Nick> which is pretty much useless to me when ssh-ed in
On 5/24/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Talin wrote:
> > As in the
> > above example, the use of backticks can be signal to the document
> > processor that the enclosed text should be examined for identifiers and
> > other Python syntax.
>
> Does this mean it's time for "pyST" -- Python
13 matches
Mail list logo
