On 1/21/06, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote: > On this page, 8 of 30 entries have a 'new in' comment. For anyone with no > interest in the past, these constitute noise. I wonder if for 3.0, the > timer can be reset and the docs start clean again. To keep them backwards > compatible, they would also have to be littered with 'changed in 3.0' and > 'deleted in 3.0' entries. Better, I think, to refer people to the last 2.x > docs and a separate 2.x/3.0 changes doc. (That has nothing to do with Fredrik's efforts of course -- he's just faithfully copying the annotations from the existing docs.) If Python 3.0 is indeed the major incompatible release that we currently expect it will be, I agree that "new in 3.0" and "new in 2.x" annotations make little sense, since so much will be "new in 3.0" (or "deleted in 3.0"). It's probably better to have a separate document explaining the differences between 2.x and 3.0. For the 2.x line, however (and again post-3.0) I think the "new in X" annotations are important -- lots of people have to deal with different Python versions, and it's a lot easier to depend on "new in X" notations than to manually compare two or more versions of the docs. (Although you still need to do thorough testing -- like the rest of the docs, these annotations can't be 100% perfect.) As far as noise goes, "new in X" is minor compared to all the stuff that's documented that the average user never needs... :-) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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