[SciPy-user] Docstring standards for NumPy and SciPy
robert.kern at gmail.com
Wed Jan 17 18:04:19 CST 2007
Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:
>> Gary Ruben wrote:
>>> I think the :Returns: section is missing.
>>> Is see-also to be included at the end of the Notes section. For
>>> see-also, Ed says we can just add ":see: `frobble`" markup, so we should
>>> be able to just add a line like in the numpy example list on the wiki.
>> Personally, I'd like to encourage a prose explanation with each see-also
>> reference. Doing so discourages the (relatively unhelpful, IMO) scattershot
>> lists that we've been using so far.
> Any suggestions on how that might be done?
Not writing any code to try to parse the "see-alsos" into simple lists. That's
as elegant a solution as you get, IMO. :-)
More seriously, simply making the "See also" section unstructured, and writing
the initial examples with appropriate verbosity will probably suffice.
>>> I'm not clear on what the :Keywords: section adds. I think the 2nd
>>> example is just as good.
>> In plain text, it looks fine, but the code that interprets the two sections as
>> (slightly) separate and outputs HTML and PDF as such remains to be written.
> I understood that epydoc translates :Parameters: and :Keywords: sections
> for us (see the consolidated fields section of
> http://epydoc.sourceforge.net/fields.html#fields )
Yes, I was referring to the hypothetical code that would parse the blank line in
the single :Parameters: section as a separator between parameters and keywords.
Personally, I simply prefer having explicit, separate sections here, and don't
care what the :Names: are.
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the SciPy-user