Py2.3: Feedback on Sets

[Raymond Hettinger]

> >"iterable" *is* <some type spec>. If something is "iterable" it has a
well-defined interface - specifically:
>
> I get what you mean, but let me point out that "iterable" does not appear
> in the index of either the Language Reference or Library Reference, nor do
> I see it in the introduction.  Actually, the introduction would really
> benefit from a description of all the conventions used in the manual.  As
> it stands, one has to come across this usage several times to realize it's
> a convention (and that's not the way many people use reference manuals).
>
> What would be really cool, and probably easy, is to just make sure that
> every occurrence of "iterable" is a link to a page that describes that
> well-defined interface.
>
> This is still beyond the scope of the question about the Set documentation.
> I appreciate the responses, but I'm not sure whether this is the right time
> to continue this sort of discussion.

It is exactly the right time and place.
I frequently make documentation fixes
based on the comp.lang.python discussions.


Each fresh pair of eyes sees something new.
Achieving excellent documentation is a journey
and not a destination.


Raymond Hettinger