[New-bugs-announce] [issue6522] docs for unittest.expectedFailure do not syntactically show it's a decorator

[Brett Cannon]

New submission from Brett Cannon <brett at python.org>:

If you look at the docs for the unittest.expectedFailure decorator you 
will notice it shows a set of empty parentheses since it is set with a 
function directive. But since it's a decorator those empty parentheses 
are not accurate.

If you want to view the docs as showing common usage -- like the docs 
for the other decorators in unittest -- then those empty parentheses 
need to go. An @ should also probably be added as well.

But if you view it more as how the decorator is called -- like with 
importlib.util.module_for_loader does -- then it should have an argument 
for the callable being passed in. This would also mean that all the 
other decorators in unittest need a second set of parentheses taking a 
callable as their argument as well.

Perhaps it's time we added a decorator directive that adds the @ sign 
and does not insert empty parentheses?

----------
assignee: georg.brandl
components: Documentation
messages: 90718
nosy: brett.cannon, georg.brandl
priority: low
severity: normal
stage: needs patch
status: open
title: docs for unittest.expectedFailure do not syntactically show it's a decorator
type: feature request

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue6522>
_______________________________________