[Numpy-discussion] Stricter numpydoc validation

[Peter Cock]

I’d find this sort of (stricter) numpydoc validation tool very useful,
especially if the different codes can be selectively enforced while
bringing a large code base into compliance (as pandas seems to have used
this).

A stand alone tool would be fine, a flake8 plug-in perhaps even better -
see also my
https://github.com/peterjc/flake8-rst-docstrings for doing basic RST
validation of docstrings (but not their contents as we are discussing
here). The nice thing with writing a flake8 plugin is that handles
include/excluding of codes and file names for you.

Regards,

Peter

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 16:13, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 4:23 AM Gael Varoquaux <
> gael.varoquaux at normalesup.org> wrote:
>
>> > The one thing I worry about is maintenance burden, where numpydoc is
>> already
>> > spread a little bit thin -- would any of the Pandas developers be
>> willing to
>> > maintain it?
>>
>> Any reason that this is not done in sphinx, with the napoleon extension?
>> https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/extensions/napoleon.html
>>
>> I would hope that this can increase the number of people likely to help
>> maintaining.
>>
>
> Just history. Numpydoc came first, most projects rely on it. Napoleon came
> way later and then did its own numpy docstring support rather than
> contribute to numpydoc or propose a merge.
>
> If someone wants to figure out how compatible these two implementations
> are and whether they can be merged, that would be really welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20190716/1651958e/attachment.html>