Overall organization is definitely an issue, at least for newer users.
As an occasional python user I remain constantly in a mode of having to
look up basic terminology for examples and exact spelling of terms in
order to knock out a quick script. I feel very much like Mr. Bottaro
that the docs,
bruno modulix a écrit :
snip
I fail to see why would it would be better to have to open a browser, go
to python.org, go to the doc, find the right link etc instead of just
typing dir(xxx) and/or help(xxx).
I fully agree with you. I just suspect that you are not more than me a
web
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
Hi All--
Yes. There are multiple ways I can correct myself, some, I'm sure,
involving chains and whips.
Well, if you like it...
But you're all missing the point:
Christopher is right! Python docs are not as good as PHP docs.
That's a POV, not a fact.
Why
bruno modulix wrote:
I fail to see why would it would be better to have to open a browser, go
to python.org, go to the doc, find the right link etc instead of just
typing dir(xxx) and/or help(xxx).
Well, for those with Windows machines, the documentation is a simple
Start-All
Ivan Van Laningham a écrit :
(snip)
BTW, my tortured method is quicker than Bruno's, because to use his
method I'd have to start the interactive interpreter.
start the interactive interpreter ??? What do you mean, start the
interactive interpreter ??? It's *always* started as a part of your
bruno I fail to see why would it would be better to have to open a
bruno browser, go to python.org, go to the doc, find the right link etc
bruno instead of just typing dir(xxx) and/or help(xxx).
Actually, you frequently don't even have to enter the Python interpreter.
Executing pydoc
Ivan Van Laningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi All--
The Python docs are not ideal. I can never remember, for instance,
where to find string methods (not methods in the string module, but
methods with ''), but I can remember a tortured path to get me there
[...]
The answer to 80% of where
Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
Hi All--
The Python docs are not ideal. I can never remember, for instance,
where to find string methods (not methods in the string module, but
methods with '')
Curiously I had the same problem just the other day,
except
Christopher J. Bottaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
At my work, we are developing a product from scratch. It is completely
modular and the modules communicate via SOAP. Because of that, we can
implement individual modules in any language of our choosing (so long as
they have good SOAP
Christopher J. Bottaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
By the way, did you try the .chm?
John
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curiously I had the same problem just the other day, except with list
instead of string. I think the problem is that the sections on the
actual built-in types (list, str, dict, etc.) are one level too far
down to appear in the
Greg Ewing wrote:
Curiously I had the same problem just the other day,
except with list instead of string. I think the problem
is that the sections on the actual built-in types
(list, str, dict, etc.) are one level too far down
to appear in the table of contents of the Library
Reference.
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
Hi All--
John Bokma wrote:
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
Python docs are not as good as PHP docs.
Oh my. I hope you are just making that up. PHP documentation is
guesstimated on how PHP works on average. Add the online comments
clutter and you probably are
Paul Some parts of the lib doc are better than others. The only way to
Paul understand SocketServer, for example, is to read the long comment
Paul at the beginning of the source file. I've been wanting to get
Paul around to merging that with the doc writeup and adding some
Ivan I get that. My question, cleverly concealed in a rant, was, Why
Ivan does clicking on the Documentation link at python.org NOT take me
Ivan to docs.python.org?
I almost changed that link, but then reconsidered. Compare
http://docs.python.org/
with
Steven Bethard wrote:
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
The Python docs are not ideal. I can never remember, for instance,
where to find string methods (not methods in the string module, but
methods with '')
Hmmm... Well going to http://docs.python.org/ and typing string
methods into the search
Steven Bethard wrote:
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
Contrast that with Python. First off there is no search mechanism
built into the documentation page (yes I know you can google it, but that
just doesn't feel right).
Um, are you looking at the current documentation page?
Christopher J. Bottaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
because there are no namespaces or classes, but still I think Python could
do something similar. Say for instance search for append and it will
come back with a page for list's append, a page for array's append, etc.
A seperate page for each
Mike Given that Python hides the difference between user-defined
Mike objects and built-in objects, it's not clear to me that anything
Mike other than the current system, with all the classes/types in one
Mike place, makes sense.
Maybe the Module Index should be renamed
Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe the Module Index should be renamed Module/Type Index and
embellished
with the builtin types, so that you'd find float (builtin), string
(builtin), dict (builtin), etc. in the appropriate alphabetical
positions.
On 5/12/05, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe the Module Index should be renamed Module/Type Index and
embellished
with the builtin types, so that you'd find float (builtin), string
(builtin), dict
Skip Montanaro wrote:
Mike Given that Python hides the difference between user-defined
Mike objects and built-in objects, it's not clear to me that anything
Mike other than the current system, with all the classes/types in one
Mike place, makes sense.
Maybe the Module Index
Terry Hancock wrote:
*But you do have to remember that strings are documented under sequences
this is probably my biggest complaint about the Library Reference ---
something
as important as string methods should have its own heading in the top-level
outline. But that's a nitpick, of
Steven Bethard wrote:
Skip Montanaro wrote:
Mike Given that Python hides the difference between user-defined
Mike objects and built-in objects, it's not clear to me that anything
Mike other than the current system, with all the classes/types in one
Mike place, makes sense.
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
Hi All--
The Python docs are not ideal. I can never remember, for instance,
where to find string methods (not methods in the string module, but
methods with '')
Curiously I had the same problem just the other day,
except with list instead of string. I think the
Ron Adam wrote:
What I would like to see is something like the following for each item:
0. reference @ sequence code
2. Builtin | import library
3. Type/class: Name/Syntax
4. Description with examples
6. Links to other references of this item in docs
7. Links to related functions or
This post is just the culmination of my thoughts and discussions with my
coworkers on Python. If you are not interested, please skip over it.
At my work, we are developing a product from scratch. It is completely
modular and the modules communicate via SOAP. Because of that, we can
implement
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
...blah blah blah...
Heh, silly me...there is already a huge thread about this...kinda.
The intricacies of the computing term greedy aside, yes I think the Python
documentation should generally be better. What that means, I have no idea.
All I know is that I
I think Python's doc really rock. It's odd, why do you refer to the
tutorial when the lib API is what I'd consider the docs.
If you're using Windows, then the doc browser included is pretty good
too...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
[...]
Funny, the con of Python (documentation) is PHP's strong point.
The PHP manual is extremely easy to navigate and its search feature
works great. Contrast that with Python, where you have to use the
tutorial as the manual. Also, the tutorial is just
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
After we were done, we talked about the pros and cons of the languages.
Funny, the con of Python (documentation) is PHP's strong point. The PHP
manual is extremely easy to navigate and its search feature works great.
Contrast that with Python, where you have to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Python's doc really rock. It's odd, why do you refer to the
tutorial when the lib API is what I'd consider the docs.
I guess I mean Python needs a manual, which is basically what the tutorial
serves as, but its not comprehensive and organized like how (I think)
Steven Bethard wrote:
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
After we were done, we talked about the pros and cons of the languages.
Funny, the con of Python (documentation) is PHP's strong point. The PHP
manual is extremely easy to navigate and its search feature works great.
Contrast that with
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
...blah blah blah...
Heh, silly me...there is already a huge thread about this...kinda.
The intricacies of the computing term greedy aside, yes I think the Python
documentation should generally be better. What that means, I
a thought.
Jue
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Christopher J. Bottaro
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 11:51 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Python Documentation (should be better?)
This post is just the culmination of my thoughts
Manual == scope of the *Lib Reference* + informal style of the
*Tutorial*,
Right ?
Consider non-official manuals such as:
+ http://diveintopython.org/toc/index.html (free)
+ python in a nutshell
+ python cookbook
+ etc.
Cheers,
SB
--
Jue Maybe a mailing list or forum people can contribute example and
Jue notes?
Contributions can be made at the SourceForge patch tracker:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470atid=305470
Plain text is fine.
Skip
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
I think it should evolve into a manual that is more comprehensive
and organized more like other programming manuals (chapter on control
structures,
http://docs.python.org/tut/node6.html
or
http://docs.python.org/ref/compound.html
functions,
Le Wed, 11 May 2005 15:58:04 -0400, rbt a écrit :
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
Because PHP is such a 'thrown together' and 'bolted-on' language. If it
didn't have *outstanding* documentation (which it does BTW), no one
could even begin to understand how they got from a little HTML language
Hi All--
The Python docs are not ideal. I can never remember, for instance,
where to find string methods (not methods in the string module, but
methods with ''), but I can remember a tortured path to get me there
(yes, I know, fix my brain; easier said than done). The module index is
good, if
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
[...]
Cuz I think the Language Reference is really more of a grammer
reference and
far too technical to look up simple things like how to declare a
function.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no manual (for the
language
itself, not the
I can usually end up where I want to be by picking up my copy of
_Python
in a Nutshell_. 95% of the time I can find what I want in there or
from
there.
This book is really great. Could anybody convince Alex Martelli to
basically make it freely available to the world ? 0.9 wink.
I would
I don't know what you guys are talking about!!
In idle:
help(module)
I love the way python handles documentation. Its not invansive
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Cuz I think the Language Reference is really more of a grammer
reference and
far too technical to look up simple things like how to declare a
function.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no manual (for the
language
itself, not the modules). There is just the tutorial that
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
The Python docs are not ideal. I can never remember, for instance,
where to find string methods (not methods in the string module, but
methods with '')
Hmmm... Well going to http://docs.python.org/ and typing string
methods into the search box gives, as the first
rbt wrote:
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
...blah blah blah...
Heh, silly me...there is already a huge thread about this...kinda.
The intricacies of the computing term greedy aside, yes I think the
Python
documentation should generally be better. What
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
Contrast that with Python. First off there is no search mechanism built
into the documentation page (yes I know you can google it, but that just
doesn't feel right).
Um, are you looking at the current documentation page?
http://docs.python.org/
In the upper
Ivan Van Laningham a écrit :
Hi All--
The Python docs are not ideal. I can never remember, for instance,
where to find string methods (not methods in the string module, but
methods with ''),
dir('')
['__add__', '__class__', '__contains__', '__delattr__', '__doc__',
'__eq__', '__ge__',
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Ivan Van Laningham a écrit :
Hi All--
The Python docs are not ideal. I can never remember, for instance,
where to find string methods (not methods in the string module, but
methods with ''),
dir('')
['__add__', '__class__', '__contains__', '__delattr__',
Shi, Jue wrote:
I agree. The PHP manual is really good, especially the examples and user
contributed notes.
Dunno if anyone's spent much time editing this, but a while a go AMK posted:
http://www.amk.ca/diary/archives/cat_python.html#003336
which puts a wiki side-by-side with the Python docs:
Hi All--
Yes. There are multiple ways I can correct myself, some, I'm sure,
involving chains and whips. But you're all missing the point:
Christopher is right! Python docs are not as good as PHP docs. Why
not? Why do I have to be told Hey, there are fifty ways to get what
you want! when I
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
Why can't Python have documentation like that? The language is
awesome, it just needs documentation of the same quality.
The canonical answer is, roughly, 'it can'.
A standard addendum is to say that contributions are always welcome.
A common clarification of
Sébastien Boisgérault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manual == scope of the *Lib Reference* + informal style of the
*Tutorial*,
You, as well as the OP, left out the Language Reference, which is the
manual (by me definition) for the language itself. Chapter 2 of
Ivan and Company:
Keep this in your favorites bar:
http://rgruet.free.fr/PQR24/PQR2.4.html
Under Contents, click on Basic types and their operations:...string
But I think this could have an expanded idioms section.
I.E.
for index,element in enumarate(alist):
or
for atup in
Hi All--
Steven Bethard wrote:
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
I should be able to type string methods into the text box,
push submit, and IT SHOULD HAND ME THE PAGE. Not Results 1 - 20 of
about 9,800 from www.python.org for string methods. (0.78 seconds)
Regardless, assuming the right
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
http://www.python.org/doc/
Type string methods into the box; push submit. Result:
Results 1 - 20 of about 9,800 from www.python.org for string methods.
(0.14 seconds)
I did not go to docs.python.org, I went to www.python.org and clicked on
the doc link.
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
Python docs are not as good as PHP docs.
Oh my. I hope you are just making that up. PHP documentation is
guesstimated on how PHP works on average. Add the online comments clutter
and you probably are better off reading the source.
--
John
Christopher Exactly!! See thats what I'm saying. I _think_ its widely
Christopher accepted that PHP has awesome documentation. And like rbt
Christopher said, that makes it extremely useful. Why can't Python
Christopher have documentation like that?
It's just a simple matter
Steve [AMK's] wiki side-by-side with the Python docs:
Steve http://pydoc.amk.ca/frame.html
There's also wikalong, though that's firefox-specific.
Skip
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Hi All--
Robert Kern wrote:
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
http://www.python.org/doc/
Searching on docs.python.org goes through just the stuff that's on
docs.python.org, which is pretty much just documentation. Google's magic
points to the current documentation.
Searching on
Hi All--
John Bokma wrote:
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
Python docs are not as good as PHP docs.
Oh my. I hope you are just making that up. PHP documentation is
guesstimated on how PHP works on average. Add the online comments clutter
and you probably are better off reading the source.
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
Hi All--
Robert Kern wrote:
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
http://www.python.org/doc/
Searching on docs.python.org goes through just the stuff that's on
docs.python.org, which is pretty much just documentation. Google's magic
points to the current documentation.
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 02:54 pm, Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no manual (for the language
itself, not the modules). There is just the tutorial that serves as the
manual. I think it should evolve into a manual that is more comprehensive
and
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 03:42 pm, flamesrock wrote:
I don't know what you guys are talking about!!
In idle:
help(module)
I love the way python handles documentation. Its not invansive
Yeah, and if you write your docstrings with reasonable care it
works for your own modules, too! I love
Aahz wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that docs.python.org was added mostly to aid Google searches.
I *do* think that the Documentation link should go to docs.python.org. I
believe there is a mailing list somewhere that discusses
65 matches
Mail list logo
