M.Z. assumptions (was Re: [Doc-SIG] Re: Ease of use is #1)
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:09:25 -0500 (EST)
Moshe Zadka writes:
> OK, that sounds like a good goal for the doc-string grammar proposal. As
> a way to make it a bit less vague let me suggest one criterion for any
> doc-string syntax: pick any 2-3 doc-string'ed modules from the standard
> library, and mark them up so the resulting documentation will be just as
> good as what is currently in the library reference. Any suggestion which
> doesn't meet this criterion will surely fail whatever vague notion Fred
> has (unless it is vague enough <wink>)
I'd like to see a processing tool that outputs structure. This
should probably be based on pythondoc, since a lot of the work is done
there; perhaps Ping would like to work on that? ;-) It has the nice
property of supporting multiple backends. I've no idea of the quality
of the code; last time I tried it, it just wouldn't work for me.
Is Daniel Larson still working on pythondoc?
> if-I-wouldn't-want-to-take-you-seriously-I-wouldn't-ly y'rs, Z.
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org>
Corporation for National Research Initiatives