On 12/14/06, Darren Dale <dd55@cornell.edu> wrote:
On Tuesday 12 December 2006 12:20, David Huard wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I followed this thread with much interest and I wouldn't like it to die
> without some kind of concensus being reached for the Scipy documention
> system. Am I correct to say that Epydoc + REST/Latex seems the way to go ?
>
> If this is the case, what's next ? I'm not familiar with any of this, but
> I'd be great if someone knowledgeable could define a roadmap and create a
> couple of tickets so that people like me could contribute small steps.
I have also been very interested in this discussion. Once the issue is
settled, would someone please write a wiki page outlining the preferred
format for scipy/numpy documentation, along with a short explanation of how
to do the markup?
Numpy contains a good deal of C code that needs documentation, will Epydoc do the job? It might make sense to use different systems for the python and C code, say Epydoc for the former and doxygen for the latter. Also, the docstrings for the python visible functions in numpy are separated from the code and probably need to be parsed. Some code that writes phony functions with the appropriate comments might do the trick, although some provision would probably be needed to pull out the function signature.
Chuck