Newbie: finding the key/index of the min/max element

[Andrew Dalke]

James J. Besemer:
>A traditional solution for this would be for someone to write and maintain
a
>FAQ for the list.

Perhaps like http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw.py ?
(Go to python.org, follow link to FAQ.  Actually, there are two
links to the FAQ on that page, the other being to
 http://www.python.org/doc/FAQ.html )

Alex:
> [a] explicit block delimiters,
http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw.py?req=show&file=faq06.002.htp

Alex:
> [b] join as a method of all the possible sequences and not of
> joiner-objects,
http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw.py?req=show&file=faq04.096.htp

Alex:
> [c] hygienic macros,

Hmm.  This isn't all that frequently asked.  There is no FAQ entry
for it.

Alex:
> [d] booleans -- oops forget I mentioned the latter, since
> they're now BDFL-blessed cruf^H^H^H^H brilliant innovations...:-).

I don't think I saw people asking for it before it was added.  At
least not enough to seem repetitive.  Were I Alex I would have included
the ternary operator and expression assignments instead of these last two.

James J. Besemer:
> By tradition, list FAQs can prominently feature a list of
>arbitrary topics that are strictly off limits.  New members can be pointed
>to the FAQ and people who willfully disregard the FAQ can be dealt with.

I wouldn't say it's strictly off limits.  I would say at least in the
context of comp.lang.python that it's not considered impolite to respond
simply with a link to the FAQ entry, with no other text.  And "dealt with"
sounds more harsh that I would like to be, and would like the group to be.
This has never been a group where RTFM has been considered the acceptable
response to a beginner question.

At the very least, it can't be off-topic because it may be that the
FAQ entry itself is not definitive and needs to be improved.

>People like myself are perfectly capable of
>following rules that are clearly posted and duly established, as opposed to
>individual complaints that for all we know are merely one person's opinion.

>Of course the FAQ itself would have to be vetted by the group, so it truly
>represents a consensus.  A good FAQ is a non-trivial amount of work.  Any
>volunteers?

Then why didn't you find the FAQ?  What can be done to make it more
visible?  It's been around for at least 6 years that I can recall and
the number 1 hit on Google for "python faq" is the static FAQ page at
  http://www.python.org/doc/FAQ.html

I've contributed to the FAQ, and Alex has contributed both to it and
to the ASPN Python Cookbook.  It does represent a lot of group effort
and a consensus view.


What I've noticed in at least some of your posts is the tendency to
assert an authority which is false-to-fact.  One was your assertion
on the direct lineage of Python from Lisp, and another is this assumption
that not only do we not have a FAQ but that we don't know what it is --
and that your view of the use of the FAQ is the same as others'.

There appears to be some antagonism in responses to your recent posts.
I submit that at least part of it comes from this tendency.

                    Andrew
                    dalke at dalkescientific.com