Python 1.6 alpha 1 released

[Bjorn Pettersen]

Fredrik Lundh wrote:

> Bjorn Pettersen wrote:
> > I haven't seen anyone claim that examples in the manual are not
> > documentation...
>
> in earlier releases of the library reference, some examples
> didn't even work.  you still think they're formally binding?

Are you saying none of the examples are binding, formally or otherwise?  I
certainly expect that when code in the documentation works as presented that
I can rely on it -- I don't think that's a particularily surprising position
to have.  (Even in the C++ standard where examples are _explicitly_ not
normative, they're usually fixed if conflicting with normative text.)

> > It would be very nice if "someone" could do that, but based on the
> > rethoric I've seen from you on this issue, and the absence of comment
> > from Guido, I certainly don't feel confident that it would be accepted.
>
> you don't know that until you've tried it...

I usually try to limit my excercises in futility.

Your other arguments for a patch are good, but seems to reinforce the feeling
that changing this behavior was ill though out in the first place. (and
remember that not all companies have enough Python expertise that a traceback
leads to a fix ten minutes later)

-b