On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:24:41AM -0500, Tim Peters wrote: > [Thomas Wouters] > > ... > > I think what's missing is a library *tutorial*. > > How would that differ from the effbot guide (to the std library)? Not much, I bet, though I have to admit I haven't actually read the effbot guide ;-) It's just that going from the tutorial to the effbot guide (or any other book) is a fair-sized step, given that there are no pointers to them from the tutorial. I can't even *get* to the effbot guide from the documentation page (not with a decent number of clicks, anyway), not even through the PSA bookstore. > If the people who wanted "just a reference" were happy, I don't think David > Beazley would have found an audience for his "Python Essential Reference". Well, I never bought David's reference :) I only ever bought Programming Python, mostly because I saw it in a bookshop while I was in a post-tutorial, pre-usenet state ;) I'm also semi-permanently attached to the 'net, so the online docs at www.python.org are my best friend (next to docstrings, of course.) > A good compromise by my lights-- and perhaps because I only care about the > HTML docs, where "size" isn't apparent or a problem for navigation --would > be to follow a terse but accurate reference with as many subsections as felt > needed, with examples and rationale and tutorial material (has anyone ever > figured how to use rexec or bastion from the docs? heh). Definately +1 on that idea, well received or not it might be by others :) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4