[Doc-SIG] docstring grammar
Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:59:23 +0100
David Ascher wrote:
> > Some notes on the proposal:
> > · Mentioning the function/method signature is ok, but sometimes
> > not needed since e.g. the byte code has enough information to
> > deduce the signature from it. This is not true for builtin
> > function which is probably the reason for all builtin doc
> > strings to include the signature.
> Right. It's not true for builtins, extension module functions, and I'm
> not sure how easy it is for JPython code. I have no problem with somehow
> making it easy to omit those in cases where the information can be
> obtained through the bytecode.
Perhaps we could use a convention: if the first line starts
with a Python identifier followed by '(' and the identifier
matches the name of the doc string owning object (function or
method), then no byte code lookup is done. Otherwise such
a lookup causes a new first line to be prepended to the
processed doc string (with '-> ?' return value).
This should cover most cases.
Y2000: 32 days left
Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/