[Doc-SIG] PEP-0216

Moshe Zadka Moshe Zadka <moshez@math.huji.ac.il>
Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:39:22 +0200 (IST)

On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Mark Hammond wrote:

> There has been no such decision, but it seems apparent that DA some time
> ago, and over the last few days myself, Ken and Tim have come out in favour
> of it, with no real dissentions.  A few of those mails stated that there
> "appeared to be a consensus" on this, and no one argued.

Let's put it this way (a paraphrase of what Mark said): ST-NG is the
current strawman. If we knock it over, we'll revert to something like
my original proposal, only changed to cause less antagonism.

Current questions about ST-NG:
   - Does it support proper escaping of meta-characters? If I want to
     type *, or ', can I?

   - Does my proposal about Python symbols identified as [<type>:<symbol>]
     make sense? How hard would it be to extend the current code to 
     do just that?

   - What high level rules do we wish to impose on each docstring? In
     particular, how to document methods that don't exist? (E.g.,
     __getattr__ or instance variables that look like methods)

> We have to start somewhere, and soon.  I could not sit through another
> doc-sig meeting at the next conference arguing the same things we did 3
> years ago, 2 years ago, and early this year.

You're so right. The meeting was a total failure -- we got absolutely

If there are any objections/questions other then the ones I outlined,
please let me know -- either by private e-mail or on this sig. 
(As mentioned, I prefer to be CCed on mail to the sig about the PEP --
I'll read it sooner that way)
Moshe Zadka <moshez@math.huji.ac.il> -- 95855124