Python/Perl Popularity (Re: A Mountain of Perl...)

[Daniel Berlin+list.python]

>>>>> "tom" == tom 98 <tom__98 at my-deja.com> writes:


    tom> In article <200004102111.HAA03380 at envy.fulcrum.com.au>,
    tom> Richard.Jones at fulcrum.com.au wrote:

    tom> Maybe you can contribute more constructively:

    tom>  -- How can I browse the Python documentation without firing
    tom> up a web browser?

Convert it to text format. It's latex, you can make it into anything
you want, and do anything you want with it.
If you tell me your environment for programming, i'll tell you a nice
way to be able to get at it that doesn't involve firing up a web browser
    tom> Or,   How do I get information on a single
    tom> Python function or class quickly?
Personally, i read the docstrings.
I have a little utility function in my python startup file.
SO all i do is thus:
import socket 
>>> info(socket.htonl) 
Documentation: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Object <built-in function htonl> : 
    htonl(integer) -> integer  

    Convert a 32-bit integer from host to network byte order.  
 
 

    tom> Is there any equivalent of
    tom> "perldoc -f split" or "perldoc Net::POP3"?  What do you do in
    tom> that situation?

You fire up the interperter, which you probably already have running,
and just look at the docstring.
If they didn't provide one, well, you yell at them.


    tom>  -- Is there a Python equivalent of CPAN and the Perl CPAN
    tom> module?  The closest I know of is Parnassus.  But Parnassus
    tom> is merely a collection of links, not an archive, and it
    tom> doesn't have any facilities (AFAIK) for automatic
    tom> installation.

So, who gives a crap?
I try not to be that lazy.

    tom>  -- Several extensions I have wanted to install have required
    tom> access to the full Python source tree, not just the header
    tom> files and the library. 
Such as?
    tom>  Is that going to change?  Otherwise,
    tom> how can I install Python extensions that want access to the
    tom> source tree on, say, a standard RedHat system?
I have yet to see a single one that required access to the full source
tree.
If it doesn't have a damn good reason, the package is broken.
    tom> Having the
    tom> standard RPM-based installation in parallel with a /usr/local
    tom> installation from source is confusing, and removing the
    tom> RPM-based installation risks breaking things.


Why do i get the feeling you'll never be satisfied?

    tom> Tom.