** Operator

Christoph Zwerschke cito at online.de
Tue Mar 21 10:29:16 CET 2006


Ron Adam wrote:
> I agree and think the "for language lawyers" should be changed to 
> something that encourages people to read it instead of encouraging them 
> to avoid it.  Maybe:
> 
>     "The Python language structure for everyone".
> 
> If it's hard to read and understand, then that can and should be fixed.

Hm, actually that was not my point. I think the writers of the Language 
Reference already did a very good job. The precise and "authoritative" 
language reference covering all the subtleties and special cases will 
never be fun to read. You would rather learn the use of the keywords and 
the basic rules and magic attributes of the language from a good 
tutorial or handbook, and look up the Language Reference really 
seldomly. You can program quite well in Python without ever having 
looked into the official Language Reference. Newbies should not think 
they need to read it in order to start programming.

However, it is different with the Lib Reference. This is used on a daily 
basis, you will often look into it, Python users are accustomed to it, 
and it should invite readers to really browse and read and learn more 
about the power of the batteries included. My point was that since users 
are more accustomed to and prefer to use the Lib reference as their 
first source of information rather than the Language reference, it 
should not be reluctant to mention some things which strictly speaking 
belong to the Language Reference. In some cases, it can also point to 
the Lanugage Reference for the details (and it does so already).

-- Christoph



More information about the Python-list mailing list