<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/03/15 16:05, Ian Cordasco wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAN-Kwu2o4t1Ljz-f_TCoRgA4dh_huF_f5Xv9J_Qj7YTVxcVndw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Daniel Holth <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dholth@gmail.com" target="_blank">dholth@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Yes,
setup.py should die. Flit is one example, and you can
understand<br>
it not by copy/pasting, but by spending half an hour
reading its<br>
complete source code.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">In other words, no one should read the
docs because that's a waste of time? Because a lot of time has
been poured into the packaging docs and if they're not
sufficient, then instead of improving them, people should
write undocumented tools that force people to read the source?
I'm not sure how that's better than what we already have.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You're attacking a strawman. Flit does have documentation. What
Daniel was trying to say is that flit is small enough to understand
by just reading the source code.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Ian F<br>
</body>
</html>