On Mar 19, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:48:48 +1100 Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
But that's not my main objection. We keep the bar high for inclusion in the standard library, and it shouldn't offend anyone.
Has treating the documentation like the library been considered? That is, instead of linking to Doug's examples, assuming Doug consented, incorporate them directly into the doc, and give Doug a commit bit so he can maintain them. That would also solve the versioning issues, at least to the level of "which version is the example for." Done right, the examples should be automatically testable.
Some of the examples were copied into the standard library docs as part of the GHOP context a few years ago. I would prefer not to incorporate everything directly, for now, because it would complicate the licensing for publication. I appreciate everyone's willingness to discuss Tarek's proposal and consider alternatives, but I think it is probably best to leave things as they are until there is an official policy on outbound links from the standard library docs. I agree that having a large number of links to other sites would be a maintenance burden, so I completely understand the reluctance to take that on as a project. Drawing a parallel from the way the library code is handled, it seems best to treat PyMOTW as a separately maintained resource and let users find it separately. Now, if there was an index equivalent to PyPI for documentation resources, *that* would complete the analogy. :-) Doug