Re: What to do next for 2.6?

Nick Coghlan <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.python.documentation
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Georg Brandl wrote:
> A.M. Kuchling schrieb:
>> This weekend I made a final revision pass over the 2.6 "What's New"
>> document and am now finished with it (barring any small corrections or
>> omissions that come in).
>>
>> What should I do now with my Python doc time?  Georg, do you have any
>> suggestions?  I could start reading through one of the manuals from
>> end-to-end or go through the bug tracker for doc items.  Are there any
>> writing-related tasks you've been meaning to do before 2.6final?
> 
> There is one thing I've been putting off for quite a long time :)
> 
> Basically, the builtin types aren't documented well. The
> /library/stdtypes document is too long and not structured in a good
> fashion. Also, signatures for the constructors are documented in
> /library/functions which is not wrong but not satisfying either.
> Also, the type hierarchy in the "data model" section from the lang.
> ref. has overlaps with that section. For example, both document some
> special methods, both document the built-in types, etc.
> 
> I would like to rename the lang. reference to "Core Python language".
> This document would then contain the language spec, ideally enhanced with
> some examples for those not liking having EBNF thrown into their face,
> the "data model" section with all its customization docs, and the content
> on built-in functions and types, all special methods and type methods
> properly documented etc. (e.g. I think some new float methods aren't
> documented yet).
> 
> This is a large task, and I don't want to burden it on you. In my opinion
> it will make the Python documentation structure easier to grasp. I don't
> know how much time you have; I've never found enough of it to start.

Along those lines, I plan to spend my Python time after 2.6/3.0 are out
on an odf2rest converter for the user reference that's currently sitting
in the sandbox. Even if we don't end up using that document as-is (it's
a bit too dated at the moment for that to be a possibility anyway), I
think it will provide useful input to any large-scale additions
(particularly those targeting a middle ground between the tutorial and
the language reference in regards to the language statements and the
builtins).

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   [email protected]   |   Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
            http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Doc-SIG maillist  -  [email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/doc-sig
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.