[Python-Dev] [Doc-SIG] that library reference, again (original) (raw)
Robey Pointer robey at lag.net
Fri Jan 27 05:42:16 CET 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] The path module (class) PEP
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Doc-SIG] that library reference, again
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 29 Dec 2005, at 23:13, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Robey Pointer wrote:
[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? but epydoc is a docstring-based format, right? I'm trying to put together a light-weight alternative to the markup used for, primarily, the current library reference. moving all of (or parts of) the reference documentation in to the library source code would be an alternative, of course [1], but that would basically mean starting over from scratch.
I think that would be a good thing to do no matter what markup is
used. It always irritates me when I do 'help(sys.something)' and get
one line of ASCII art that's probably useful to the module author but
nobody else.
robey
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] The path module (class) PEP
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Doc-SIG] that library reference, again
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]