classification
Title: Incorporate Guide to Magic Methods?
Type: enhancement Stage:
Components: Documentation Versions: Python 3.2, Python 3.3, Python 3.4, Python 2.7
process
Status: open Resolution:
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: docs@python Nosy List: benjamin.peterson, djc, docs@python, ezio.melotti, jcea, rhettinger, terry.reedy
Priority: normal Keywords:

Created on 2012-03-23 09:01 by djc, last changed 2013-01-03 01:15 by rhettinger.

Messages (4)
msg156639 - (view) Author: Dirkjan Ochtman (djc) * (Python committer) Date: 2012-03-23 09:01
Should we perhaps ask if we can include https://github.com/RafeKettler/magicmethods in the official docs? It seems nice (and now ranks higher on Google than the official docs...).
msg156666 - (view) Author: Benjamin Peterson (benjamin.peterson) * (Python committer) Date: 2012-03-23 14:54
Someone would have to 1) determine if this a good idea 2) ask the author 3) actually perform the integration (that is determine how this would replace/complement things in reference/*).
msg156730 - (view) Author: Terry J. Reedy (terry.reedy) * (Python committer) Date: 2012-03-25 01:24
If one searches for the informal name 'Python magic methods', RafeKettler's doc and 3. Data model — Python v2.7.2 documentation come in 1,2. Given that the latter does not even contain the word 'magic', that means that is actually ranks higher in some real sense.

Suggestion: we should do a bit of SEO and add the informal name to that page (and 3.4). Then either might come in first for such inquiries.

If one searches for the official name 'Python special methods', then our Chapter 3 comes in first and RafeK's doc 9th. The 2.5.2 version of 3.4 Special method names comes in second. This points to a second problem with google rank: we have several versions of the docs indexed, so links to our docs are scattered among them, and none rank as high as they really should. 

I glanced at the git doc and it seems to largely duplicate the info in the docs already. So it should not be just 'incorporated'.

Dirkjan: if you have any specific suggestions for doc improvement, regardless of inspiration, please give them. If not, I think this issue should be closed.
msg178873 - (view) Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * (Python committer) Date: 2013-01-03 01:15
Much of that article is taken directly from the official docs and adds very little in the way of explanation.  I think we need our own write-up with better explanations and examples.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-01-03 01:15:59rhettingersetnosy: + rhettinger
messages: + msg178873
2013-01-02 03:46:40ezio.melottisettype: enhancement
versions: + Python 2.7, Python 3.2, Python 3.3, Python 3.4
2012-06-20 15:36:29jceasetnosy: + jcea
2012-04-14 04:34:59ezio.melottisetnosy: + ezio.melotti
2012-03-25 01:24:13terry.reedysetnosy: + terry.reedy
messages: + msg156730
2012-03-23 14:54:50benjamin.petersonsetnosy: + benjamin.peterson
messages: + msg156666
2012-03-23 09:01:35djccreate