Tutorial creates confusion about slices

[Michael Bentley]

On Apr 24, 2007, at 4:47 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:

> On 2007-04-24, Michael Bentley <michael at jedimindworks.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:39 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that if you give this explanation to someone and explain
>>> that there is also a step parameter, chances are he will answer
>>> correctly if you ask him, what he thinks the following will result
>>> in:
>>>
>>>
>>>   "This is an example line"[12:19:2]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you ask him what the following will result in:
>>>
>>>   "This is an example line"[19:12:-1]
>>>
>>> Chances are he will give the wrong answer.
>>
>> To be honest, bro -- I'd expect him to have enough intelligence to
>> experiment for a second and figure it out.  This isn't rocket science
>> -- you can plainly see what's happening -- so learn it and move  
>> on.   
>
> I don't think that the possibility to experiment and see for oneself
> is a good reason to keep a possible confusing explanation in a  
> tutorial.

It's only potentially confusing if you already know more than has  
been presented and are in fact, *experimenting* with techniques that  
have yet to be presented.

>> Or better yet, quietly submit a patch...
>
> Why should I? If the reactions would have been one of agreement that
> this is confusing and that the explanation should be changed, I would
> have considered submitting a patch.
>
> But most people that reacted seem to defend the current text in some
> way or another. So if most people seem to feel there is no need for
> a change why should I then submit a patch?

... or even continue the thread?