M.Z. assumptions (was Re: [Doc-SIG] Re: Ease of use is #1)

Fred L. Drake, Jr. fdrake@acm.org
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.

the-catch-of-course-is-that-sometimes-you-can't-even-if-you-want-to-ly y'rs,

Fred L. Drake, Jr.	  <fdrake at acm.org>
Corporation for National Research Initiatives