[Doc-SIG] epydoc reST markup for stdlib docstrings
fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Wed Apr 14 14:44:03 CEST 2010
On 14/04/2010 13:38, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2010, at 08:55 PM, David Goodger wrote:
>> I'm not a fan of epydoc's conventions (too much like JavaDoc, too
>> verbose, too strict). On the other hand, "now is better than never" --
>> working code and rough consensus rule. I wouldn't object to making the
>> epydoc field conventions *a* standard convention, allowing for others.
>> Just as choice of markup is very much a matter of personal preference
>> (some people *love* dealing with XML directly), choice of API
>> documentation semantics is also a personal preference thing. We would
>> be wise to allow for choice.
> Perhaps it would be useful to survey some popular and/or large Python code
> bases to see what is currently being used? That would be a good start to try
> to figure out what the stdlib should recommend.
> I do think that we should make strong recommendations for the standard
> library, so that we have consistency and good online documentation. I
> personally like epydoc reST format (not JavaDoc) but I'm sure there are other
> decent formats.
I'm not aware of other formats beyond epydoc and javadoc (I agree with
your opinion on javadoc) - oh and the .NET xml format which I strongly
recommend we steer clear of. Do you have any references?
I don't recall *ever* seeing a consistent pattern for specifying
parameters and return values in Python docstrings.
I too would prefer a consistent pattern be adopted for the Python
standard library. Good luck finding someone to go and change all the
docstrings in the standard library to use it...
> Doc-SIG maillist - Doc-SIG at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Doc-SIG