[Python-ideas] Linking Doug's stdlib documentation to our main modules doc.
jnoller at gmail.com
Sat Mar 19 22:58:24 CET 2011
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't agree with the hand waving around broken links, the fact the
>> Doug wrote a book, endorsements, etc. The fact is, he's written better
>> docs on many things, and we're doing the community a disservice by not
>> actively exposing them as supplements to the existing documentation.
>> Why is it so hard to simply do the right thing here?
> Because it's a new idea and a level of
> integration-without-incorporation that hasn't been considered before.
> The PSF reps on here (along with everyone else) wouldn't be doing a
> good job as stewards of the language if valid concerns were glossed
> over without being given due consideration.
While I understand all of those things: I think that we've
systematically become obsessed with the worst-possible case scenarios,
"what ifs", and so on. This obsession with getting something perfect
that addresses all possible use cases means that normally nothing
happens, or something which performs a pale shadow of the original
It's one thing to be conservative about say, language changes -
semantics changes have impacts that will far exceed the lifetime of
any of the developers discussing the issue. It's something else when
were debating about the inclusion of Really Good Resources that
accentuate our own.
I just worry we're hand wringing over the perfect solution - and not
to throw voltaire too many bones - The perfect is the enemy of the
More information about the Python-ideas