I’d find this sort of (stricter) numpydoc validation tool very useful, especially if the different codes can be selectively enforced while bringing a large code base into compliance (as pandas seems to have used this).
A stand alone tool would be fine, a flake8 plug-in perhaps even better - see also my https://github.com/peterjc/flake8-rst-docstrings for doing basic RST validation of docstrings (but not their contents as we are discussing here). The nice thing with writing a flake8 plugin is that handles include/excluding of codes and file names for you. Regards, Peter On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 16:13, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 4:23 AM Gael Varoquaux < > gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org> wrote: > >> > The one thing I worry about is maintenance burden, where numpydoc is >> already >> > spread a little bit thin -- would any of the Pandas developers be >> willing to >> > maintain it? >> >> Any reason that this is not done in sphinx, with the napoleon extension? >> https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/extensions/napoleon.html >> >> I would hope that this can increase the number of people likely to help >> maintaining. >> > > Just history. Numpydoc came first, most projects rely on it. Napoleon came > way later and then did its own numpy docstring support rather than > contribute to numpydoc or propose a merge. > > If someone wants to figure out how compatible these two implementations > are and whether they can be merged, that would be really welcome. > > Cheers, > Ralf > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
