mark_bottjer at hotmail.com
Wed Aug 11 19:45:50 CEST 2004
Andrew Durdin wrote:
> I honestly believe that having docstrings where they are is better
> than having them before the function signature; how many
> function-commenting standards have you seen where the function name is
> repeated in the first line of the comment so that you know what
> function is being talked about when you start reading the comment?
I'm torn on this one, frankly. I agree that having it before the
function is very much putting the cart before the horse, and leads to
redundancy to keep it all straight, but I also agree that having it
inside the function muddies up the function implementation, and is not
the first place one might think to look for such information.
> This in conception is something like the following:
> def foo(bar, baz=None):
> """Frobulates bar, and calls baz if it is not None."""
> .attribute = "qux"
I think that this has been proposed before, but was rejected for reasons
I can't remember. But, as a guess, GvR's argument that one should not
have to "look inside" a function to see what it is would apply.
And FWIW, the body statement is probably unnecessary. All that really
needs to be delineated is the header; everything that isn't header is by
definition the body. Just my $0.02.
More information about the Python-list