Prev: Sending HTTP headers via plain sockets
Next: TOLERANCE IN ISLAM
From: geremy condra on 23 Jul 2010 04:03
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:24 PM, march <hellomarch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Steven, thank you for your reply.
>
> It is true that I didn't read the document with enough carefulness.
> some of my questions are answered in the page I post the link of. Some
> are not.
>
> But the documentation is poor. You need to read throughout the entire
> page, hoping to find what you need about one single API, and you might
> fail.
>
> I don't think "Python is a volunteer effort" can justify the poor
> documentation. Linux, glibc are based on  volunteer effort too, and
> they has good documentations.
>
> I am not blaming those volunteers who devote their precious time to
> this language. It will be good if the python communities get more
> people who like to write documentation.
>
> Anyway, thank you again.

Two things:

1) don't top post, it's bad form.
2) I'd be happy to help you through the process of getting your doc
changes written and onto the tracker. Others more capable than myself
have offered their help once things reach that stage.

Geremy Condra
From: Steven D'Aprano on 23 Jul 2010 04:26
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:20:03 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> [Fix top posting]

While you were fixing the top posting, did you bother to trim any
unnecessary quoting? Let me scroll down and see...

.... why no, no you didn't.

I'm not a religious man, but the verse about the mote in your brother's
eye might be appropriate about now. It's one thing to make a point about
another's social faux pas, and other to make an equally big one yourself
while doing so.


--
Steven
From: Grant Edwards on 23 Jul 2010 10:26
On 2010-07-23, Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:18:43 -0700, march wrote:
>
>> Hi, guys.
>>
>> As a regular user of python, I am often annoyed by the fact that the
>> official python docementation is too short and too simple to satisfy my
>> requirement.
>
> Python is a volunteer effort. If the docs don't suit your requirements,
> we're grateful for patches.
>
>> While working with socket, I want to know every detail about every API.
>> I can easilly achieve that by reading man page if the language is C. But
>> It seems that the Python story is different.
>
> Python is open source. Where the documentation is silent, the ultimate
> authority is the source code. Particularly if the code is a thin wrapper
> around the C library, which I expect (but don't know for sure) the socket
> code will be.
>
>
>> For the interface recv(), all I got is only three sentences. "
>> Receive data from the socket. The return value is a string representing
>> the data received. The maximum amount of data to be received at once is
>> specified by bufsize. "
>> http://docs.python.org/library/socket.html#socket.socket.recv
>>
>> What if the call fail?
>
> You will get an exception, just like the page says:
>
> All errors raise exceptions. The normal exceptions for
> invalid argument types and out-of-memory conditions can be
> raised; errors related to socket or address semantics raise
> the error socket.error.
>
>
>> What if the peer close the socket?
>
> You will get an exception,

Nope. You read a value of "".

> just like the Fine Manual says.

If it does say that, it needs to be fixed.

>> I hate this documentation!

Then quit bitching and submit a patch.

> Don't blame the documentation for your failure to read it. It's true
> that it could be improved, but most of your questions were answered
> by the page you linked to.

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I am having FUN...
at I wonder if it's NET FUN or
gmail.com GROSS FUN?
From: Steven D'Aprano on 23 Jul 2010 10:49
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:26:27 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:

>>> What if the peer close the socket?
>>
>> You will get an exception,
>
> Nope. You read a value of "".

Thank you for the correction.


>> just like the Fine Manual says.
>
> If it does say that, it needs to be fixed.

No, I apparently just made it up.



--
Steven
From: rantingrick on 23 Jul 2010 11:42
On Jul 23, 9:49 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...(a)REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:26:27 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> > If it does say that, it needs to be fixed.
>
> No, I apparently just made it up.

Yes and i'll bet you've *never* just "made up" anything to scaffold
your arguments? </sarcasm>. Since this trait is one of the major
personality flaws of the deeply religious... are you *sure* your *not*
a religious man Steven? We've also seen our fair share of haughty
arrogance and sanctimoniousness from time to time. Just observations
really. Sorry, i guess I just wanted to put a big neon sign around
your mistake. Of course now we both have our eyes poked out!

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king! ;-)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Sending HTTP headers via plain sockets
Next: TOLERANCE IN ISLAM