I've found a publisher who's somewhat interested in producing a printed version of the Python docs, though nothing is certain yet. In the knowledge that there may be a printed version of the 1.5 docs, what changes should be made?
I for one would want to make sure that we don't rush into something like this without making sure that the product is high-quality. I agree with ,I think it was you, Andrew, that the docs need a typesetting makeover at the very least. I also feel that the tutorial badly needs an overhaul -- right now most of the good stuff is in "and then we added ..." sections, which gives the wrong impression. I realize that the author of the tutorial (GvR) is too busy, but I do think it's an important and needed change... BTW: the reason I think it's important to do a good job is that I think this sort of product has a much bigger PR effect than one might think -- and first impressions count a lot.
Gabriel Berriz made some excellent suggestions, where the priority is improving the index and adding cross-references from module to module. (For example, the rand module would also reference random.py and whrandom.py. Michael K. Johnson at Red Hat independently suggested the same improvement.)
The os/posix/etc. modules fall into that category as well.
Regarding a printed version, what should be in it? Probably the big 4
* Documentation for the matrix extensions?
I will update the Numeric tutorial a lot in the future -- it seems it'd be a shame to rush it out the door when it's not ready for prime time. --david _______________ DOC-SIG - SIG for the Python Documentation Project send messages to: doc-sig@python.org administrivia to: doc-sig-request@python.org _______________