digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Python 2.5 Quick Reference

rgruet.free.fr — A very comprehensive Python reference

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ZaNkY, on 10/12/2007, -4/+750 Diggs and no comments... Why the mindless digging? If you appreciate the article it would be nice to comment...

    It's a nice reference, but a little long IMO. The ideal reference, specifically the ideal QUICK reference, would be a one page printable....

    Having to scroll through pages of references is not quick. Otherwise nice stuff.
    • cadillaccactus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1agreed, its a little long for a dig article. but i still throw it a dig.
    • Wisgary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yup, for quick one page references, the ones at ILoveJackDaniels.com are awesome.

      http://www.ilovejackdaniels.com/cheat-sheets/

      I keep the Javascript and PHP ones on my desk. The RegEx one, well, not so much because RegEx is simple enough to remember, and when I need to look up something for that it's usually not going to be in a simple 1 page reference.
    • msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Commenting is required to digg something?

      Anywho....this is one of the better quick reference guides I've seen for python.
    • ZaNkY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1no, not "required" per say. It took about 60 diggs before someone else commented. That's probably 200-300 people that have viewed the article. 60 people LIKE the article enough to digg it, but can't say anything about it? Come on, at lease ONE person must have the guts to say SOMETHING...

      Typically if no one can comment something positive of the article, it indicates the quality of the article. Empty comments indicates that people are digging it mainly for the title, not necessarily for the content.
    • synae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3People that are pleased with something are much less likely to say something than those that are displeased. That goes for lots of things, not just digg.

      Specifically on digg, it's more common to see people complain about an article than to praise it.
    • gtlogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apparently people's python bot scripts don't know how to post comments yet.
    • ace77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@synae
      You are right, my home page stories about Vista have tons of comments by fanboys of all sides, much better stories only a few. I think that pure technical stuff is not easy to comment and that what matters is the link: in dzone.com (a site like digg but exclusively for developers) only a few stories are commented but the stories are awesome, at least for developers :-)
  • cadillaccactus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2http://digg.com/celebrity/Rachel_Ray_s_FHM_shoot

    EDIT: oops, mispost. ignore this comment (it was meant for an IM window)
    • ZaNkY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8LIES.....

      You obviously edited your comment, and therefore could have edited the link out as well. Nice try buddy with your advertisement. buried.
    • SEN5241, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3dugg down for lame digg spam.
  • 3dom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7noone expects the spanish inquisition
    • ioral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4haha! i wasn't expecting that "Python reference." dugg!
      (fyi noobs who buried the parent, python docs often quote Monty Python)
    • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought my reference was good :(
  • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Pics or it can not be seen.
  • marcopse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1great
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.