RetroSearch Browse

Tue Aug 30 23:41:28 CEST 2005 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-August/055869.html

On Tuesday 30 August 2005 17:35, Michael Chermside wrote:
 > An excellent point. Obviously, EITHER (1) the module functions ought to
 > be documented by reference to the RE object methods, or vice versa:
 > (2) document the RE object methods by reference to the module functions.

Agreed.  I think the current arrangement is primarily a historical accident 
more than anything else, but I didn't write that section, so could be wrong.

 > Does anyone else think we ought to swap that around in the documentation?
 > I'm not trying to assign more work to Fred... but if there were a
 > python-dev consensus that this would be desirable, then perhaps someone
 > would be encouraged to supply a patch.

I'd rather see it reversed from what it is as well.  While I don't have the 
time myself (and don't consider it a critical issue), I certainly won't 
revert a patch to make the change without good reason.  :-)

  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.   <fdrake at acm.org>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-August/055869.html below:

[Python-Dev] Revising RE docs (was: partition() (was: Remove str.find in 3.0?))