On Tue, Feb 24, 2004, Greg Ewing wrote: > > To serve the function of being up-lookable, it really needs to be a > new keyword, specific to this use, rather than re-using a generic one > like "as" or "is". But I can't think of one that doesn't put undue > emphasis on the mechanism, which I don't think would be helpful to > either newbies or experienced users. Newbies don't want to be swamped > with getting their brains around all the subtleties of how it works, > and experienced users don't want to have to think about it all the > time. > > By the way, there are already instances of syntax that people > frequently find difficult to look up, such as the * and ** arguments. > Maybe we could do with some kind of "explain" tool that you could > feed a snippet of code to and it would provide manual references > to all the syntactic features it contained? What's really needed is a formal reference containing informal writing. IOW, someone looking up ``def`` ought to find the information zie needs, but more colloquially than is used in the Lang Reg. Making a start on that has been on my plate for many moons, but I've never gotten enough tuits.... -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "Do not taunt happy fun for loops. Do not change lists you are looping over." --Remco Gerlich, comp.lang.python
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