(original) (raw)
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there's a general agreement in this thread that we don't intend to change the status quo. Both .rst docs and docstrings are important. The remaining question is - can we use some tool to generates parts of the former from the latter and thus avoid duplication and rot?
I don't think that duplication is much of an issue. Natural language understanding is not at the level yet where you can generate a meaningful summary from a longer text fully automatically (let alone vice versa :-) so I think having to write both a concise docstring and a longer more detailed description for the Doc tree is not a waste of effort at all.
As for rot, it's just as likely that rot occurs as a *result* of autogeneration. Having to edit/patch the source code in order to improve the documentation most likely adds an extra barrier towards improving the docs.