More random python observations from a perl programmer

[Mark Jackson]

Jeremy Hylton <jeremy at cnri.reston.va.us> writes:
> >>>>> "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. 

On my Solaris box:

"man c" returns nothing.

"man cc," "man gcc," even "man f77" return varying amounts of
information about the *compilers*, at best a mention of where to go to
learn about the *language*.

You know, I have never read c.l.perl.misc, but I have developed a
strong theory about why it is widely reputed to be a rude and
unpleasant place.

-- 
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
    The entrepreneurial spirit is not rare in humankind.  The problem
    is most people who have it, apply it to lunatic enterprises.
				- Mike O'Brien