Message139016
| Author | r.david.murray |
|---|---|
| Recipients | daniel.urban, docs@python, eric.araujo, ncoghlan, r.david.murray, terry.reedy |
| Date | 2011-06-25.05:11:46 |
| SpamBayes Score | 2.1702445e-10 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1308978707.12.0.0404889796885.issue12374@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
My understanding is that the language reference is a purposefully minimalist document that specifies the language (insofar as anything other than the CPython implementation does so). So while better explanations of the implications of the language design are a good thing, they don't necessarily belong in the language reference. (I'm not saying they don't, I'm just repeating what the intro says: "this is not a tutorial".) In particular I am suspicious that statements that begin "in languages such as ..." don't belong in the language reference as it is currently written. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2011-06-25 05:11:47 | r.david.murray | set | recipients: + r.david.murray, terry.reedy, ncoghlan, eric.araujo, daniel.urban, docs@python |
| 2011-06-25 05:11:47 | r.david.murray | set | messageid: <1308978707.12.0.0404889796885.issue12374@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011-06-25 05:11:46 | r.david.murray | link | issue12374 messages |
| 2011-06-25 05:11:46 | r.david.murray | create | |