Python documentation problem

Brian van den Broek bvande at po-box.mcgill.ca
Sat Jun 18 10:16:10 CEST 2005


Xah Lee said unto the world upon 18/06/2005 03:49:
> Python documentation,
> http://python.org/doc/2.4.1/lib/typesfunctions.html
> 
> -----------------
>  2.3.10.3 Functions
> 
> Function objects are created by function definitions. The only
> operation on a function object is to call it: func(argument-list).
> 
> There are really two flavors of function objects: built-in functions
> and user-defined functions. Both support the same operation (to call
> the function), but the implementation is different, hence the different
> object types.
> 
> See the Python Reference Manual for more information.
> -----------------
> 
> Fuck the python doc wasted my time. Fuck python coders.
> Each time i tried to use python doc and got frustrated because it being
> grossly incompetent, i'll post a message like this, no more frequent
> than once a week. This will go on as long the python community does
> nothing to fix it or that i remain coding in python.
> For reference, see
>  http://xahlee.org/perl-python/re-write_notes.html
> 
>  Xah
>  xah at xahlee.org
>http://xahlee.org/

I'm sure I will regret this in the morning . . . .

Xah, since the docs are a community effort, you surely can (and have) 
pointed to genuine blemishes in them.

I am however at a loss to understand just what the perceived problem 
is here. 5 short sentences, one defining a term, 1 stipulating the 
interface, two pointing out and clearing up a potential cause of 
confusion, and a reference. All are clear, and score quite well on the 
content:words measure to boot. (Certainly it is clearer and more 
informative than the words either you or I have here added.) What's 
your complaint? Not enough cursing?

Best,

Brian vdB




More information about the Python-list mailing list