[Python-Dev] [Doc-SIG] that library reference, again (original) (raw)

Christopher Armstrong radeex at gmail.com
Sat Dec 31 03:29:34 CET 2005

On 12/30/05, Robey Pointer <robey at lag.net> wrote:

On 29 Dec 2005, at 18:58, David Goodger wrote: > [Fredrik Lundh] >>>> I'm beginning to fear that I've wasted my time on a project >>>> that nobody's interested in. > > [David Goodger] >>> Could be. I don't see HTML+PythonDoc as a significant improvement >>> over LaTeX. > > [Fredrik Lundh] >> Really? > > Yes, really. Just out of curiosity (really -- not trying to jump into the flames) why not just use epydoc? If it's good enough for 3rd-party python libraries, isn't that just a small step from being good enough for the builtin libraries?

It's not really even "good enough" for a lot of my usage without some seriously evil hacks. The fundamental design decision of epydoc to import code, plus some other design decisions on the way it figures types and identity seriously hinder its utility. Ever notice how trying to document your third-party-library-using application will also document that third party library, for example? Or how it'll blow up when you're trying to document your gtk-using application on a remote server without an X server running? Or how it just plain blows right up with most Interface systems? etc.

-- Twisted | Christopher Armstrong: International Man of Twistery Radix | -- http://radix.twistedmatrix.com | Release Manager, Twisted Project \\V/// | -- http://twistedmatrix.com |o O| | w----v----w-+

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list