[Python-Dev] PEPs shouldn't be considered docs
Ned Batchelder
ned at nedbatchelder.com
Fri Oct 11 13:24:06 CEST 2013
I wanted to teach a co-worker about "from __future__ import
absolute_import" today, so I thought I'd point them at the docs. The
page for "__future__" starts with a bunch of internal details that
almost no one needs to know. There's a table at the end that mentions
the actual importable names, including "absolute_import", but says
nothing about then except to link to a PEP.
The absolute imports PEP has no simple description of what it does. Like
many PEPs, it's mostly a summary of the debate around the design of the
feature. The closest the PEP comes to describing the behavior of
"absolute_import" is this parenthetical:
For the second problem, it is proposed that all import statements be
absolute by default (searching sys.path only) with special syntax
(leading dots) for accessing package-relative imports.
And notice: that sentence describes it as a "proposal."
I'd like to suggest that we not consider PEPs to be documentation. If a
PEP has a good succinct description of how something works, then let's
copy that text into the documentation at an appropriate place. If a PEP
doesn't have such a description, then all the more reason not to send
readers there.
A link to the PEP is appropriate as a "see also" in the docs, but we
shouldn't pretend that a PEP addresses the needs of people new to the
feature.
--Ned.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20131011/e005bde0/attachment.html>
More information about the Python-Dev
mailing list