[AstroPy] Documentation Guidelines
erik.tollerud at gmail.com
Sun Jul 24 05:39:38 EDT 2011
After the discussion on the list and some further experimentation, I
think my concerns about numpydoc for processing docstrings have been
addressed. I'm pretty sure I was the only one who had any concerns
about that area, so I'm not sure there's even need for a vote, as it
appears to me that we have reached consensus that numpy/scipy
docstring style is the way to go.
Given this, does anyone specifically want to see a vote on this
matter? If not, I will update the next version of the guidelines to
state that docstrings should follow the numpy/scipy style.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Stefan Czesla
<stefan.czesla at hs.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
> I also support adopting the Numpy/Scipy docstring format.
> What about putting this issue up for a vote? The discussion
> on this seems to be quite mature.
> The yes/no thing has bot been accepted too well, so the range of
> options should be broader this time.
> I would suggest that the doc guidelines contain an encouragement
> for writing examples/tutorial. I know its in the coding guidelines,
> but this seems to be a natural place to put it, too.
> AstroPy mailing list
> AstroPy at scipy.org
More information about the AstroPy