Talk:Python (programming language)/Archive 3

message: I have just created my first page on Doctest. Is there room for a link to it?
--Paddy 08:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctest 

message: Just to let you know.  The purpose of featuring an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors.  It will remain the feature for a week or so.  The previous feature was Berkeley Software Distribution.  Gronky 15:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Portal:Free software]], Python is currently the featured article 

message: The article claims python supports Design by contract. The "Design by contract" article itself however only lists two external packages for python which are not part of the standard lib. I cannot see any native DbC support in python 2 either.
:Article changed to reflect the fact that design by contract is supported through extensions to the langauge. --Chrismith 20:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design by contract 

message: I wonder if we should try to include a discussion of decorators in this article.  This isn't an article or tutorial on Python syntax, and as such we are certainly not exhaustive in explaining constructs.  But the passing mention of metaprogramming via the __dict__ attribute made me think of the fact that decorators are probably the best choice for most metaprogramming jobs in the latest Python versions.
What do other editors think? Worth including or too esoteric? LotLE×talk 20:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion on decorators would probably be a little much for this article. However, the syntax section is getting a little long anyway - Python syntax, analogous to C syntax would have a place for an explanation about decorators. We'd leave a vastly trimmed-down version of what's there right now (indentation, statements, fundamental datatypes, interesting expressions (lambda, listcomps, etc) (maybe)). I've seen this proposed above once or twice, but I feel if we add any more syntactical nuances to the article it will be stretched too far, so the time is opportune. --Sam Pointon 20:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that proposal.  Want to start it, Sam Pointon? LotLE×talk 21:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind.  I decided to be bold, and started the suggested child myself.  I started with a pretty aggressive cut-and-paste.  Most likely, we'll want to move a little bit more back up from the child to the main article.  But I like the look of only giving a general "feel-of-the-language" description in the main article, and let the actual syntax discussion go in the so-named child. LotLE×talk 21:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good going!  --Piet Delport 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decorators? 

message: If there are no objections, i would like to merge Python 3 into this article.  Could interested users please take a look at Talk:Python 3?  --Piet Delport 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge.  See Talk:Python 3 for explanation. LotLE×talk 02:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In case other readers are interested: I responded to your concerns over there, and tried to explain my motivation a bit better.  --Piet Delport 10:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed [[Python 3]] article merge 

message: IMO we need a disambig. page for the animal and the programming language.
-- scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.237.49 (talk • contribs) 
:There already is one: Python (disambiguation) --ozzmosis 16:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Disambiguation 

message: I am planning to remove a bunch of links from the External Links section based on Wikipedia's policy on External links (see External links). I don't want to remove all links, but I feel that the external links section is quite bloated and I would like to see it slimmed down a bit; Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of outside links. In particular, I feel that links easily accessed from the python.org site do not need to be here. Similarly, links to python-related topics that may not be of general interest should be removed (I'm looking at you, "Python for Series 60 — Resources for developing in Python on the Nokia Series 60 mobile platform").
If you have a strong feeling about why a particular link should or should not be included, speak now. Please refer to the Wikipedia policy on external links in your arguments. Zukeeper 01:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have wanted to do the same, but didn't want to single out any one particular thing as uniquely "unworthy".  I tend to think the few general tutorials and free books (i.e. that are not platform- or task-specific) are OK, especially if they are not on python.org. Nokia Series 60 is particularly egregiously over-specific, I concur. LotLE×talk 02:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advance notice: I am planning on editing the External Links section