Skip Menu |

This queue is for tickets about the SuperPython CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 4540
Status: resolved
Worked: 5 min
Priority: 0/
Queue: SuperPython

People
Owner: MJD [...] cpan.org
Requestors: davidm.perl [...] math2.org
Cc:
AdminCc:

Bug Information
Severity: Important
Broken in: (no value)
Fixed in: (no value)



Subject: documentation is misleading
The POD documentation suggests that this module is a serious implementation of Python in Perl, and this is what I first believed. But upon reading the source code, it is found to be a joke. Mitchell (http://cpanratings.perl.org/d/SuperPython) suggested as a resolution that this module be put instead under Acme::. I've noticed this problem under WinXP using Perl 5.8.2 with threading enabled, but I expect the problem also exists under all OSs and version of Perl :)
To: bug-SuperPython [...] rt.cpan.org
CC: mjd [...] plover.com
Subject: Re: [cpan #4540] documentation is misleading
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:34:14 -0500
From: Mark Jason Dominus <mjd [...] plover.com>
RT-Send-Cc:
Show quoted text
> The POD documentation suggests that this module is a serious > implementation of Python in Perl, and this is what I first > believed.
I don't think it does suggest that in any way. It refers to "the SuperPython language", and says SuperPython brings to Perl all the benefits of Python's vaunted whitespace-sensitivity, including readability, maintainability, less punctuation, and all that other great crap. In fact, it goes several steps further than Python in this direction. I'm amazed that anyone could conclude from this that the module was "a serious implementation of Python in Perl", but I guess it just goes to show that anything is possible. Moreover, the documentation says: There is no reason why Python itself could not take advantage of the benefits of SuperPython's improved syntax. which should suggest that whatever 'SuperPython' is, it is not Python. Show quoted text
> Mitchell (http://cpanratings.perl.org/d/SuperPython) suggested as a > resolution that this module be put instead under Acme::.
I'm not sure that any resolution is necessary, since I don't perceive a problem. Thanks for your report.
Not a bug.