Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #81085 > unrolled thread

Re: Python docs disappointing

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Python docs disappointing jstnms123@gmail.com - 2014-11-20 07:54 -0800
    Re: Python docs disappointing Joel Goldstick <joel.goldstick@gmail.com> - 2014-11-20 11:51 -0500
      Re: Python docs disappointing albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-04 10:27 +0000
        Re: Python docs disappointing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-12-04 21:37 +1100
        Re: Python docs disappointing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-12-04 22:46 +1100
        Re: Python docs disappointing jtan <admin@grails.asia> - 2014-12-05 07:33 +0800
        Re: Python docs disappointing Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-12-04 16:57 -0700
    Re: Python docs disappointing Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-11-20 09:51 -0700
    Re: Python docs disappointing Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2014-11-20 11:18 -0600
    Re: Python docs disappointing Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-20 23:10 +0000
      Re: Python docs disappointing Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-11-20 23:22 +0000
    Re: Python docs disappointing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-11-21 10:29 +1100
      Re: Python docs disappointing Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-21 16:35 +0000

#81085 — Re: Python docs disappointing

On Friday, July 31, 2009 2:10:45 PM UTC-6, kj wrote:
> I'm pretty new to Python, and I like a lot overall, but I find the
> documentation for Python rather poor, overall.
> 
> I'm sure that Python experts don't have this problem: they have
> internalized some good ways to access the documentation, are
> productive with it, and therefore have lost the ability to see why
> the Python documentations is deficient for beginners.  This explains
> why a suboptimal situation can persist like this: those who are
> most able fix it are also the least able to perceive it.
> 
> I've heard similar complaints from other experienced programmers
> who are trying out Python for the first time: poor documentation.
> 
> Here is an *entirely typical* example: on some Unix, try
> 
> % pydoc urllib
> 
> The displayed documentation mention the optional parameter "data"
> in practically every function listed (a few dozen of them).  This
> parameter is not documented *anywhere* on that page.  All that we
> are told is that its default value is always None.
> 
> I'm sure that I can find a full description of this parameter if
> I fire up Google, and search online.  In fact, more likely than
> not, I'll find far more documentation than I want.  But my point
> is that a programmer should not need to do this.  The full
> documentation should be readily accessible directly through a few
> keystrokes.
> 
> I would love to know how experienced Python programmers quickly
> zero in on the Python documentation they need.
> 
> TIA!
> 
> kynn

I write this to address the criticism which targets a user's lack of responsibility for the real/implied/insinuated failings of the docs.  As a relatively inexperienced student of programming, I am not in any position to contribute/edit the documents.  THAT DOES NOT, however, DENY THE CATEGORICAL STUPIDITY OF THE DOCUMENTATION: .  Not only are the semantics of the editors in question, but so are the syntactical and grammatical conventions, too.  Semantics, even in the hands of the honest, is a fuzzy beast;  the elements of exposition and structure are not. Perhaps the inquisitive mind is correctly labeled stupid, or irresponsible, if it cannot decipher some fine piece of programming crypsis.  And perhaps not. It can just as perhaps be that there is an equal, even greater irresponsibility, on the part of those who have taken up the task of clarifying the obscure to the confused.  There is no greater arrogance, and it seems to me particularly prevalent among the educators in the technical fields, than pretending any hermeneutic, an effective hermeneutic. Sadly, most of these creatures cannot tell a verb from a noun, and scarcely know where modifiers are best, most effectively, posted to qualify their objects, let alone use those same nouns and verbs and modifiers to explain the intricacies of a subject.  Tell one of these cognoscenti that language is about COMMUNICATION, and they begin pointing abstract fingers at their critics, and labeling. 

Perhaps the reason programs are so inelegant, and so user-UNfriendly, and so bug-infested, is a natural consequence, when a field is dominated by creatures who know much more than they comprehend, and much less than they need to?  If, I think, you cannot explain a thing to me, you do not understand it.  After all, I'm a lot smarter than you, and I have thankfully learned make out a fool however obscurely he covers himself.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#81090

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:54 AM,  <jstnms123@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 31, 2009 2:10:45 PM UTC-6, kj wrote:
>> I'm pretty new to Python, and I like a lot overall, but I find the
>> documentation for Python rather poor, overall.
>>
>> I'm sure that Python experts don't have this problem: they have
>> internalized some good ways to access the documentation, are
>> productive with it, and therefore have lost the ability to see why
>> the Python documentations is deficient for beginners.  This explains
>> why a suboptimal situation can persist like this: those who are
>> most able fix it are also the least able to perceive it.
>>
>> I've heard similar complaints from other experienced programmers
>> who are trying out Python for the first time: poor documentation.
>>
>> Here is an *entirely typical* example: on some Unix, try
>>
>> % pydoc urllib
>>
>> The displayed documentation mention the optional parameter "data"
>> in practically every function listed (a few dozen of them).  This
>> parameter is not documented *anywhere* on that page.  All that we
>> are told is that its default value is always None.
>>
>> I'm sure that I can find a full description of this parameter if
>> I fire up Google, and search online.  In fact, more likely than
>> not, I'll find far more documentation than I want.  But my point
>> is that a programmer should not need to do this.  The full
>> documentation should be readily accessible directly through a few
>> keystrokes.
>>
>> I would love to know how experienced Python programmers quickly
>> zero in on the Python documentation they need.
>>
>> TIA!
>>
>> kynn
>
> I write this to address the criticism which targets a user's lack of responsibility for the real/implied/insinuated failings of the docs.  As a relatively inexperienced student of programming, I am not in any position to contribute/edit the documents.  THAT DOES NOT, however, DENY THE CATEGORICAL STUPIDITY OF THE DOCUMENTATION: .  Not only are the semantics of the editors in question, but so are the syntactical and grammatical conventions, too.  Semantics, even in the hands of the honest, is a fuzzy beast;  the elements of exposition and structure are not. Perhaps the inquisitive mind is correctly labeled stupid, or irresponsible, if it cannot decipher some fine piece of programming crypsis.  And perhaps not. It can just as perhaps be that there is an equal, even greater irresponsibility, on the part of those who have taken up the task of clarifying the obscure to the confused.  There is no greater arrogance, and it seems to me particularly prevalent among the educators in the techni
>  cal fields, than pretending any hermeneutic, an effective hermeneutic. Sadly, most of these creatures cannot tell a verb from a noun, and scarcely know where modifiers are best, most effectively, posted to qualify their objects, let alone use those same nouns and verbs and modifiers to explain the intricacies of a subject.  Tell one of these cognoscenti that language is about COMMUNICATION, and they begin pointing abstract fingers at their critics, and labeling.
>
> Perhaps the reason programs are so inelegant, and so user-UNfriendly, and so bug-infested, is a natural consequence, when a field is dominated by creatures who know much more than they comprehend, and much less than they need to?  If, I think, you cannot explain a thing to me, you do not understand it.  After all, I'm a lot smarter than you, and I have thankfully learned make out a fool however obscurely he covers himself.
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

I learned a new word: hermeneutic

Or just WOW!.  Programming is hard, and people have just started to do
it.  Fifty years isn't that long.  It has only been 20 years or so
that the web has been around.  That makes it easier to find
information from a variety or sources -- the official docs, tutorials,
articles.  If you feel the docs are awful, write a tutorial based on
your knowledge level and experience.  Improve the situation.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around DOCUMENTION being STUPID.


-- 
Joel Goldstick
http://joelgoldstick.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81892

In article <mailman.16030.1416502295.18130.python-list@python.org>,
Joel Goldstick  <joel.goldstick@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>Or just WOW!.  Programming is hard, and people have just started to do
>it.  Fifty years isn't that long.  It has only been 20 years or so
>that the web has been around.  That makes it easier to find
>information from a variety or sources -- the official docs, tutorials,
>articles.  If you feel the docs are awful, write a tutorial based on
>your knowledge level and experience.  Improve the situation.

That doesn't help. I'm a very experienced programmer and work in
routinely a dozen languages. Sometimes I do python. I want to do
numeric work. I remember the name numpy. It is important, everybody
knows it, it is all over the place. So I want to find its docs,
or some lead, whatever. I go to the official Python site,
http://docs.python.org and type in numpy in the search machine.

It is embarassing, try it!

Plain google is far superior in finding information.

And you tell me that writing yet another tutorial would improve that?
No, there is just one way. The powers that be should look critically
at their website, and test it with a beginners hat on.

>
>I'm trying to wrap my mind around DOCUMENTION being STUPID.
>
>--
>Joel Goldstick
>http://joelgoldstick.com

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81895

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Albert van der Horst
<albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> That doesn't help. I'm a very experienced programmer and work in
> routinely a dozen languages. Sometimes I do python. I want to do
> numeric work. I remember the name numpy. It is important, everybody
> knows it, it is all over the place. So I want to find its docs,
> or some lead, whatever. I go to the official Python site,
> http://docs.python.org and type in numpy in the search machine.
>
> It is embarassing, try it!
>
> Plain google is far superior in finding information.

Part of getting to know a language is learning what the best way to
find information about it is. When I want Pike documentation, I always
go direct to the docs (usually to my own build of them, to be sure
it'll match my locally-compiled Pike, so that's
http://sikorsky:8080/modref/index.html), but for most other languages,
it's better to use a web search. Sometimes your best result isn't the
official docs at all, but a StackOverflow post. Or maybe it's part of
the official docs, but not the module reference page (if you want to
know about argparse basics, the python.org howto is probably better
than the main page). As an added bonus, you don't need to "go here,
type this into search" - you just type what you want into your
browser's search box, or at very worst, pull up a link you probably
use a hundred times a day and will be cached.

> And you tell me that writing yet another tutorial would improve that?
> No, there is just one way. The powers that be should look critically
> at their website, and test it with a beginners hat on.

"The powers that be" implies that there's somebody else who is
obligated to provide a service to you. I don't think that's really the
case. That said, though, your other points are quite right; another
tutorial won't help, and improving search will help.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81901

Albert van der Horst wrote:

> That doesn't help. I'm a very experienced programmer and work in
> routinely a dozen languages. Sometimes I do python. I want to do
> numeric work. I remember the name numpy. It is important, everybody
> knows it, it is all over the place. So I want to find its docs,
> or some lead, whatever. I go to the official Python site,
> http://docs.python.org and type in numpy in the search machine.
> 
> It is embarassing, try it!

Why would it be embarrassing?

Why should the Python website provide documentation for numpy? Numpy is not
part of the Python language, and it is not part of the Python standard
library.

If you buy a Compaq printer to plug in to your Hewlett-Packard computer
running Windows, would you go to the Microsoft website to find out where to
order toner for the printer? Or to the H-P site?

Numpy might be written *in* Python (*some* of numpy, not all of it) but it
is not part of Python. Why should the python language website be
responsible for numpy documentation? How about django, CherryPy, nltk, and
about two thousand other third party projects?

It is 2014, not 1977, and your first step for nearly any search should be
the global search engine of your choice: Google, DuckDuckGo, Bing, Yahoo,
Startpage, or similar. Only if you know that something is categorically
part of Python or its standard library should you limit yourself to the
Python language reference and standard library documentation.


> Plain google is far superior in finding information.

Well duh.

> And you tell me that writing yet another tutorial would improve that?

Apparently people need a tutorial to teach them to search the entire web not
just a single website...




-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81958

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Albert van der Horst <
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:

> In article <mailman.16030.1416502295.18130.python-list@python.org>,
> Joel Goldstick  <joel.goldstick@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> Plain google is far superior in finding information.
>
> And you tell me that writing yet another tutorial would improve that?
> No, there is just one way. The powers that be should look critically
> at their website, and test it with a beginners hat on.
>

The community is in the best place to document  language.  And community is
not limited to the official doc site.  That includes outsiders doing their
share of writing tutorials and whatnot.  I don't find anything wrong about
that.

If you have problems with the docs, why not be a part of the solution?
Write a doc for numpy and contribute it to the community.

Man, I remember using MSDN 15 years ago when working with Visual Studio.
And it's a paid product with docs. It's horrendous.


>
> >
> >I'm trying to wrap my mind around DOCUMENTION being STUPID.
> >
> >--
> >Joel Goldstick
> >http://joelgoldstick.com
>
> Groetjes Albert
> --
> Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
> Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
> albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
>
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>



-- 
Freelance Grails <http://grails.asia/> and Java <http://javadevnotes.com/>
 developer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81963

On 12/04/2014 03:27 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> That doesn't help. I'm a very experienced programmer and work in
> routinely a dozen languages. Sometimes I do python. I want to do
> numeric work. I remember the name numpy. It is important, everybody
> knows it, it is all over the place. So I want to find its docs,
> or some lead, whatever. I go to the official Python site,
> http://docs.python.org and type in numpy in the search machine.

> It is embarassing, try it!

That would indeed be embarrassing if numpy was a part of Python or had
anything to do with the python.org project.  In fact it doesn't.  It's a
third-party library for use with python.  As a beginner I would type in
"numpy" to google and see what happens.  Would you expect to go to
Microsoft MSDN to find information on a third-party library, such as,
say, SDL or Allegro, that you use in Visual Studio?

> Plain google is far superior in finding information.

Of course, since the information you are looking is third-party to
python.org for a start.

> And you tell me that writing yet another tutorial would improve that?
> No, there is just one way. The powers that be should look critically
> at their website, and test it with a beginners hat on.

Your ire is misplaced.  The GP was saying that if there is a deficiency
in the Python docs you can help fix that. If there's a deficiency in the
numpy docs, you can ask them about fixing that's what he means.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81091

On 11/20/2014 08:54 AM, jstnms123@gmail.com wrote:
> Perhaps the reason programs are so inelegant, and so user-UNfriendly,
> and so bug-infested, is a natural consequence, when a field is
> dominated by creatures who know much more than they comprehend, and
> much less than they need to?  If, I think, you cannot explain a thing
> to me, you do not understand it.  After all, I'm a lot smarter than
> you, and I have thankfully learned make out a fool however obscurely
> he covers himself.

I'm not really sure what your point is, who are you are talking to, or
the purpose in replying to your own post from 5 years ago!  You seem to
be addressing "you" but I don't know who that is.

Kudos for apparently sticking with Python despite your struggles with
its documentation.

Personally I find the online docs to be *very* good, comparable to the
best of documentation for programming languages anywhere.  For example,
Python's official docs have either improved since your last look in
2009, or maybe you didn't know to look there:

https://docs.python.org/2/library/urllib2.html
https://docs.python.org/2/howto/urllib2.html

The "data" parameter that confused you so much in 2009 is explained very
clearly.  But if it's not clear enough, try it out and see what it does.
Python is a very discoverable language. Just fire up the interpreter and
try out code, and interrogate the returned objects (dir, help, etc).

Between the python docs and loads of helpful folk on this list and on
the web in general, I can do a google search on just about any
python-related coding question and find loads ("heaps" for Chris!) of
helpful information including complete examples, which I find very
helpful.  I'm sure google was around in 2009 when you last posted.
Surely you could have googled for python urllib example and found one.

For all your talk of communication and many words, you're saying very
little, I'm not at all sure what you are talking and to whom your
audience is.  Since you're apparently not explaining this does that mean
you don't understand it?  Methinks you are misrepresenting the adage
about being able to explain something is to understand it.  If an
engineer explains dynamic force analysis to you but you don't
understand, does that mean he really doesn't understand it? Of course
not. He just lacks the ability to explain it in terms of reference you
will understand, or maybe you lack prerequisite knowledge.  Study
engineering for a while and you'll understand him well enough.

If you're just trolling, hopefully the list will forgive me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81094

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:54 AM, <jstnms123@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Here is an *entirely typical* example: on some Unix, try
> >
> > % pydoc urllib
>

I don't know who "kj" is, and jstnms123 seems to be basically off his
rocker, so I won't try cc'ing either of them. (They also seem to
misunderstand the nature of contributing to open source software, but I'll
ignore that.)

Hopefully I'm not duplicating someone else's response. I just stumbled on
this thread. A couple things to note. One, pydoc just assembles the
documentation strings for the item you asked for. Python has both inline
documentation (meant to be brief, quick reference material) and long form
documentation (the library and reference documentation, as well as the
tutorial.) Pydoc just extracts what is available at the interpreter prompt
if you execute

import urllib
help(urllib)

That is meant to answer quick questions like, "what arguments does
urllib.urlopen accept?", not, "what's the overall intent of the urllib
module?". Despite its admitted brevity, note that if you ask pydoc for a
module's documentation, that at the very top of its output, it also
identifies the location of the source code on your system and refers you to
the long form online documentation:

Help on module urllib:

NAME
    urllib - Open an arbitrary URL.

FILE
    /opt/TWWfsw/python27/lib/python2.7/urllib.py

MODULE DOCS
    http://docs.python.org/library/urllib

DESCRIPTION
    ...


I in no way mean to suggest that the documentation can't be improved. I'm
simply pointing out that the documentation is almost certainly better than
kj and jstnms123 give the authors credit for. I added that particular
feature to the pydoc module over ten years ago, so I know it is highly
unlikely your version of pydoc is missing this feature.

Skip

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81138

On 2014-11-20, jstnms123@gmail.com <jstnms123@gmail.com> wrote:

> I write this to address the criticism which targets a user's lack of
> responsibility for the real/implied/insinuated failings of the docs. 
> As a relatively inexperienced student of programming, I am not in any
> position to contribute/edit the documents.

Wrong.  As an inexperienced user, you are _exactly_ the right person
to contribute/edit the documents.  A documents _always_ make sense to
the author and to somebody who already knows the information.  They
are often not capable of seeing what's wrong.

It's those who are _not_ familiar with the subject matter who can
often make the most valuable contributions.

> THAT DOES NOT, however, DENY THE CATEGORICAL STUPIDITY OF THE
> DOCUMENTATION: .  Not only are the semantics of the editors in
> question, but so are the syntactical and grammatical conventions,
> too.

Then send in suggestions, corrections and improvements.  Or pony up
and actually take over maintenance of one of the documents you think
is so bad.

The authors of the documentation aren't _intentionally_ writing things
that other people don't understand.  If you don't understand the
documentation or think it needs to be extended/expanded, then help
_do_ it.

Just telling somebody "the document you wrote SUCKS!" is not even a
_tiny_ bit helpful.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Everybody gets free
                                  at               BORSCHT!
                              gmail.com            

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81143

On 20/11/2014 23:10, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-11-20, jstnms123@gmail.com <jstnms123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I write this to address the criticism which targets a user's lack of
>> responsibility for the real/implied/insinuated failings of the docs.
>> As a relatively inexperienced student of programming, I am not in any
>> position to contribute/edit the documents.
>
> Wrong.  As an inexperienced user, you are _exactly_ the right person
> to contribute/edit the documents.  A documents _always_ make sense to
> the author and to somebody who already knows the information.  They
> are often not capable of seeing what's wrong.
>
> It's those who are _not_ familiar with the subject matter who can
> often make the most valuable contributions.
>
>> THAT DOES NOT, however, DENY THE CATEGORICAL STUPIDITY OF THE
>> DOCUMENTATION: .  Not only are the semantics of the editors in
>> question, but so are the syntactical and grammatical conventions,
>> too.
>
> Then send in suggestions, corrections and improvements.  Or pony up
> and actually take over maintenance of one of the documents you think
> is so bad.
>
> The authors of the documentation aren't _intentionally_ writing things
> that other people don't understand.  If you don't understand the
> documentation or think it needs to be extended/expanded, then help
> _do_ it.
>
> Just telling somebody "the document you wrote SUCKS!" is not even a
> _tiny_ bit helpful.
>

Having seen some of the garbage that turns up on the bug tracker under 
the guise of "improvements" I suggest that many people who criticize the 
docs don't take up a career as a technical author.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81144

jstnms123@gmail.com wrote:

> I write this to address the criticism which targets a user's lack of
> responsibility for the real/implied/insinuated failings of the docs.  As a
> relatively inexperienced student of programming, I am not in any position
> to contribute/edit the documents.  THAT DOES NOT, however, DENY THE
> CATEGORICAL STUPIDITY OF THE DOCUMENTATION: .  Not only are the semantics
> of the editors in question, but so are the syntactical and grammatical
> conventions, too.  Semantics, even in the hands of the honest, is a fuzzy
> beast;  the elements of exposition and structure are not. Perhaps the
> inquisitive mind is correctly labeled stupid, or irresponsible, if it
> cannot decipher some fine piece of programming crypsis.  And perhaps not.
> It can just as perhaps be that there is an equal, even greater
> irresponsibility, on the part of those who have taken up the task of
> clarifying the obscure to the confused.  There is no greater arrogance,
> and it seems to me particularly prevalent among the educators in the
> technical fields, than pretending any hermeneutic, an effective
> hermeneutic. Sadly, most of these creatures cannot tell a verb from a
> noun, and scarcely know where modifiers are best, most effectively, posted
> to qualify their objects, let alone use those same nouns and verbs and
> modifiers to explain the intricacies of a subject.  Tell one of these
> cognoscenti that language is about COMMUNICATION, and they begin pointing
> abstract fingers at their critics, and labeling.
> 
> Perhaps the reason programs are so inelegant, and so user-UNfriendly, and
> so bug-infested, is a natural consequence, when a field is dominated by
> creatures who know much more than they comprehend, and much less than they
> need to?  If, I think, you cannot explain a thing to me, you do not
> understand it.  After all, I'm a lot smarter than you, and I have
> thankfully learned make out a fool however obscurely he covers himself.

I take my hat off to you, sir or madam, that is a brilliant satire of
pretentious self-important impenetrable prose complaining about the lack of
readability of another text. Although I found that the occasional
grammatical errors (such as the missing "how to" from the last sentence),
which I assume are deliberate, were a bit heavy handed and more distracting
than ironic.

Nevertheless, a masterful job. You made me laugh.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81224

On 2014-11-20, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> jstnms123@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I write this to address the criticism which targets a user's lack of
>> responsibility for the real/implied/insinuated failings of the docs. 
>> As a relatively inexperienced student of programming, [...] After
>> all, I'm a lot smarter than you, and I have thankfully learned make
>> out a fool however obscurely he covers himself.
>
> I take my hat off to you, sir or madam, that is a brilliant satire of
> pretentious self-important impenetrable prose complaining about the lack of
> readability of another text.

Were it written in green ink, it would have been perfect.  ;)

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I am having FUN...
                                  at               I wonder if it's NET FUN or
                              gmail.com            GROSS FUN?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web