serious factual inaccuracy (Score 1)

The Slashdot reviewer writes:

"The book addresses itself to intermediate Python programmers and covers versions 2.7 and 3.x of the language."

Umm... no it doesn't. As anyone who has an amazon account can verify, the author does *not* cover Python 3.x. This is what Doug Hellmann says at the bottom of p.1 and the beginning of p.2 in his book:

"Although the current transition to Python 3 is well underway, Python 2 is still likely to be the primary version of Python used in production environments for years to come because of the large amount of legacy Python 2 source code available and the slow transition rate to Python 3. All the source code for the examples has been updated from the original online versions and tested with Python 2.7, the final release of the 2.x series. Many of the example programs can be readily adapted to work with Python 3, but others cover modules that have been renamed or deprecated."

This is seriously hurting the reviewer's credibility. How likely is it that he read through 1300 pages and didn't even understand which language the book was written in?