More random python observations from a perl programmer

[Jeremy Hylton]

>>>>> "TC" == Tom Christiansen <tchrist at mox.perl.com> writes:

  TC> :There are 'raw' strings though, 'r"<string>"', that dont do
  TC> backslashes.

  TC> Those aren't the book, and there are no manpages.  Therefore, in
  TC> many ways, they don't really count.  I know it hurts to hear
  TC> this, and you're all going to jump on me, but please please
  TC> think about it for a bit before you do so.

[I know I said I wasn't going to get into this, but...] I think this
statement is just plain silly.  I use lots of tools, languages,
libraries, etc. that have non-existent or bad manpages.  The raw
string exist regardless of whether there is a manpage that describes
them.  Which is not to say that I'm opposed to manpages; it would
probably be helpful to provide them.

I did think about this before I jumped, but it still seems fair to
jump.  As a possible counterexample to the "if it don't have manpages
it don't exist" argument, I would suggest the C programming language.
I don't believe there are manpages that describe the language itself,
yet I found it (relatively) easy to learn.  The K&R C book is mighty
fine. 

It's also worth noting that the old Lutz book is a little like the
pre-ANSI K&R C book.  You're not going to find ANSI changes in the old 
K&R, and you're not going to find Python 1.5 info in the old Lutz
book.  In neither case does that mean the improvements don't exist.

Jeremy