[Python-Dev] Allow use of sphinx-autodoc in the standard library documentation? (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Thu May 10 07:02:20 CEST 2012
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Rietveld integration problem?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Allow use of sphinx-autodoc in the standard library documentation?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
One of the requirements for acceptance of PEP 3144 if the provision of a reStructuredText API reference.
The current plan for dealing with that is to use Spinx apidoc to create a skeleton, and then capture the rewritten ReST produced by autodoc.
However, it occurs to me that the module reference could actually use autodoc, with additional prose added to supplement the docstrings, rather than completely replacing them.
I'd initially dismissed this idea out of hand, but recently realised I didn't have any especially strong arguments against it (and there are all the usual "avoid double-keying data" arguments in favour).
So, given the advantages of autodoc, is there a concrete reason why we can't use it for the documentation of new standard library modules?
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Rietveld integration problem?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Allow use of sphinx-autodoc in the standard library documentation?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]