On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 05:38:59PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > correcting minor errors and adding explanatory material. The question > is what to do next, and that turns on whether discursive tutorial sections > are are considered fit for inclusion in the library reference. Andrew Kuchling writes: > That's up to Fred to decide. I suspect the answer is no, since it > would make the library reference too large and ungainly if every Hey, it's large & unweildy now. ;-) But I think you're right. Improving the curses HOWTO separately from the reference documentation makes sense. > I will re-raise the idea of adding the HOWTOs to the documentation > subtree, though; Fred & I have discussed it before, and decided not to > for reasons that I can't remember. I don't recall exactly, but I think it had a bit to do with the release scheduling (perhaps this was when the documentation was release lockstep with CPython?) and editorial control -- as long as you're willing to act as HOWTO editor, you should be able to release regardless of whether there's anything new to release in the standard library. Eric again: > Also, I'm not sure where the material for curses.textbox should go. New > section? Or a subsection in the curses document? curses.textbox should be documented in a \section like any other module. It can be placed in libcurses.tex along with the other curses-related modules. Is curses.wrapper documented, or is it an implementation detail? -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at beopen.com> BeOpen PythonLabs Team Member
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