[Doc-SIG] PEP 216

[Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)]

Edward Loper asked:
> Just out of curiosity, how is this new proposed PEP going to relate
> to PEP 216 ("docstring format")?  Will it replace it?  If not, then
> maybe we should just work on extending PEP 216?  If you're interested
> in this PEP stuff, and haven't read PEP 216, you should probably go
> read it..:
>
>   http://python.sourceforge.net/peps/pep-0216.html

As I see it, PEP 216 currently says that the docstring format adopted
will be STNG (with an implicit assumption that it will be a variant of
that).

What we are now talking about, and what was asked for, is to define that
variant (or several different variants to be voted on) via the PEP
mechanism.

So PEP 216 stands, albeit with very slightly amended wording, and we
gain one or more new PEPs. Which makes organisational sense to me.

> Does anyone know if Moshe Zadka still actively working on this?

I assume he is keeping at least an occasional eye on it, and if he
doesn't chime in when I've got my PEP (and alpha release) ready, I'll
actually email him to ask him to change the text of PEP 216 slightly,
and add a reference to the new PEP (and then, to any others in the
future).

(don't forget the "Python help" PEP is relevant too, as well as the
"attribute docstrings" PEP)

Tibs

--
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)      http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/
"How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive
continuity of ducks." - Dorothy L. Sayers, "Gaudy Night"
My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.)