Upvoted for the insight on why I'm having trouble finding a K&R equivalent for Python.
I bought "Learning Python" because it covers both 2.x and 3.x, but found it absolutely unnavigable as a reference. It might work well for people who want a tutorial they can go through step by step, but for someone who just wants to quickly find and absorb info in the process of doing something else, it doesn't cut the mustard.
I disagree, for instance, here's a (IMO) exact description of the K&R 'relevance':
"It's not even a very good way to learn C. The idioms and best-practices for C programming have evolved substantially, even since the second edition was published, and some of the code samples look a bit dated."
And this is from 2004, meaning it got even more dated.(http://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/ten-great-books)
The reason K&R is still the canonical C book is because it represents the language better than any other book, before or since, not because the language stagnated since ANSI C was created.
That's true, but, IMO, there's a difference between learning to program in a language and learning a language (aka "Thinking in X"). The K&R is still the best source for the latter.
I find that K&R uses some really stupid functions to do things, and as a result causes many OTHER people do do some stupid things to do things.
I find that makes it wholly in adequate for thinking in C anymore. The "Never trust data" mantra which is now part and parcel of C dev is not at all shown in K&R.
This is exactly what I meant: I could make due with what I've already found for learning the syntax of Python -- but I haven't yet found the one that teaches me to think in Python.
I'd say use the official docs combined with a cookbook or "learning python" book (which is pretty big).
K&R got to be K&R because C really didn't change that much.