[Datetime-SIG] Another round on error-checking
alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com
Fri Sep 4 18:23:40 CEST 2015
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Tim Peters <tim.peters at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wrote almost all this stuff to begin with, but right now even I'm
> already half asleep ;-)
I agree that the datetime documentation is showing its age and could
benefit from a face-lift, but note that being an entertaining read is not a
primary goal of the reference documentation if at all. The datetime
documentation has evolved through a series of local patches as new features
have been added to the module. At each turn, the primary goal was to have
a complete and accurate documentation for each method and not as much on
having the overall document well-organized.
Some of the complaints expressed in this thread can be better addressed in
a tutorial-style document rather than the reference documentation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Datetime-SIG