Documentation suggestions

[A.M. Kuchling]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 07:45:13 -0600, 
	skip at pobox.com <skip at pobox.com> wrote:
> Just because that audience is small doesn't mean they are unimportant.
> There are currently four actively maintained/developed implementations of
> Python.  A common language reference manual is important for them, and
> indirectly for the people who use the four implementations.

They're not unimportant, but I don't think the reference manual *is*
important to them because they've gotten this far with an outdated
one; the code may be resource enough.  This is why I think that the
effort expended to update a document aimed at them might be better
spent on something more widely useful.

I remembered another problem from the weekend with documenting
new-style classes.  It seemed reasonable to begin with PEP 252, and
see if any bits of the PEP can be migrated into the RefGuide, but then
I found this comment in the abstract:

	[Editor's note: the ideas described in this PEP have been
	 incorporated into Python.  The PEP no longer accurately
	 describes the implementation.]

So now we're *really* stuck.  The RefGuide doesn't describe the rules;
the PEP no longer describes them either; and probably only Guido can
write the new text for the RefGuide.  (Or are the semantics the same
and only some trivial details are different?)

--amk