Re: [Numpy-discussion] Tests and code documentation

[Charles R Harris]

Hi,

On 9/21/06, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Steve Lianoglou wrote:
> So .. I guess I'm wondering why we want to break from the standard?

We don't as far as Python code goes. The code that Chuck added Doxygen-style
comments to was C code. I presume he was simply answering Sebastian's question
rather than suggesting we use Doxygen for Python code, too.

Exactly. I also don't think the Python hack description applies to doxygen any longer. As to the oddness of \param or @param, here is an example from Epydoc using Epytext

    @type  m: number
    @param m: The slope of the line.
    @type  b: number
    @param b:
 The y intercept of the line.  The X{y intercept} of a

Looks like they borrowed something there ;) The main advantage of epydoc vs doxygen seems to be that you can use the markup inside the normal python docstring without having to make a separate comment block. Or would that be a disadvantage? Then again, I've been thinking of moving the python function docstrings into the add_newdocs.py file so everything is together in one spot and that would separate the Python docstrings from the functions anyway.

I'll fool around with doxygen a bit and see what it does. The C code is the code that most needs documentation in any case.

Chuck

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
Numpy-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/numpy-discussion