More random python observations from a perl programmer
mjackson at wc.eso.mc.xerox.com
Thu Aug 19 20:47:32 CEST 1999
Jeremy Hylton <jeremy at cnri.reston.va.us> writes:
> >>>>> "TC" == Tom Christiansen <tchrist at mox.perl.com> writes:
> TC> :There are 'raw' strings though, 'r"<string>"', that dont do
> TC> backslashes.
> TC> Those aren't the book, and there are no manpages. Therefore, in
> TC> many ways, they don't really count. I know it hurts to hear
> TC> this, and you're all going to jump on me, but please please
> TC> think about it for a bit before you do so.
> [I know I said I wasn't going to get into this, but...] I think this
> statement is just plain silly. I use lots of tools, languages,
> libraries, etc. that have non-existent or bad manpages. The raw
> string exist regardless of whether there is a manpage that describes
> them. Which is not to say that I'm opposed to manpages; it would
> probably be helpful to provide them.
> I did think about this before I jumped, but it still seems fair to
> jump. As a possible counterexample to the "if it don't have manpages
> it don't exist" argument, I would suggest the C programming language.
> I don't believe there are manpages that describe the language itself,
> yet I found it (relatively) easy to learn. The K&R C book is mighty
On my Solaris box:
"man c" returns nothing.
"man cc," "man gcc," even "man f77" return varying amounts of
information about the *compilers*, at best a mention of where to go to
learn about the *language*.
You know, I have never read c.l.perl.misc, but I have developed a
strong theory about why it is widely reputed to be a rude and
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
The entrepreneurial spirit is not rare in humankind. The problem
is most people who have it, apply it to lunatic enterprises.
- Mike O'Brien
More information about the Python-list