[Python-Dev] Unit testing (again)

[Thomas Wouters]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:24:41AM -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Thomas Wouters]
> > ...
> > I think what's missing is a library *tutorial*.
> 
> How would that differ from the effbot guide (to the std library)?

Not much, I bet, though I have to admit I haven't actually read the effbot
guide ;-) It's just that going from the tutorial to the effbot guide (or any
other book) is a fair-sized step, given that there are no pointers to them
from the tutorial. I can't even *get* to the effbot guide from the
documentation page (not with a decent number of clicks, anyway), not even
through the PSA bookstore.

> If the people who wanted "just a reference" were happy, I don't think David
> Beazley would have found an audience for his "Python Essential Reference".

Well, I never bought David's reference :) I only ever bought Programming
Python, mostly because I saw it in a bookshop while I was in a
post-tutorial, pre-usenet state ;) I'm also semi-permanently attached to the
'net, so the online docs at www.python.org are my best friend (next to
docstrings, of course.)

> A good compromise by my lights-- and perhaps because I only care about the
> HTML docs, where "size" isn't apparent or a problem for navigation --would
> be to follow a terse but accurate reference with as many subsections as felt
> needed, with examples and rationale and tutorial material (has anyone ever
> figured how to use rexec or bastion from the docs?  heh).

Definately +1 on that idea, well received or not it might be by others :)

-- 
Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!