mention of books & extensions welcome, or...? (was Re: Scripting *of* Python)

[holger krekel]

Alex Martelli wrote:
> holger krekel wrote:
>    ...
> > Anyway, I'd have prefered if you reacted to Nick instead
> > of pushing the case to all of "comp.lang.python" for judgement.
> 
> ???
> 
> How could Nick by himself tell me what the _consensus_ of
> c.l.py may be?  Do you think he's an oracle or something?

You could simply have explained to him why you felt like
mentioning the book you are proofreading.

> He's already clarified that HIS remark was intended as
> facetious (sorry, I didn't get it -- and neither did at
> least some others, judging from posts on this thread),
> but it's still relevant, I think, to try to gather a
> consensus -- and I think I see one emerging.

Even within a group talking in one room there is a lot
of stuff going on when a "consensus" is built.  
On a newsgroup like c.l.py it's certainly not less.

And it also makes a difference if a newcomer asks 
"what's the pythonic way to do ..." or if an 
authoritative person basically asks to approve 
his behaviour.   From your original posting:

"Is this just an isolated opinion, with most readers still
 welcoming mentions and details about Python books and
 extension packages; or, has comp.lang.python's consensus
 shifted so drastically, so fast, so that such mentions are
 now seen as undesirable "product placement"???"

This is not really "to try to gather a consensus" 
but uses quite some rhetorical power to push in a certain
direction. That's why i said

> > I'd have prefered if you reacted to Nick instead
> > of pushing the case to all of "comp.lang.python" for judgement.

regards,

    holger