On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:24:00 -0500, "Tim Peters" <tim.one@home.com> wrote: > Not me -- there's nothing in them that I as a potential user don't need to > know. But then I think the Library docs are too terse in general. Indeed, > Fredrick makes part of his living selling a 300-page book supplying > desperately needed Library examples <0.5 wink>. I'm sorry, Tim, that's just too true. I want to explain my view about how it happened (I wrote some of them, and if you find a particularily terse one, just assume it's me) -- I write tersely. My boss yelled at me when doing this at work, and I redid all my internal documentation -- doubled the line count, beefed up with examples, etc. He actually submitted a bug in the internal bug tracking system to get me to do that ;-) So, I suggest you do the same -- there's no excuse for terseness, other then not-having-time, so it's really important that bugs like that are files. Something like "documentation for xxxlib is too terse". I can't promise I'll fix all these bugs, but I can try ;-) -- For public key: finger moshez@debian.org | gpg --import "Debian -- What your mother would use if it was 20 times easier" LUKE: Is Perl better than Python? YODA: No... no... no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
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