Tony R. added the comment: > Thanks for the report and the patch.
Thank you for the review! > I think a better way to handle this would be to add a "tag" next to the > function name for both deprecations and "new in", and leave the actual > deprecation/new-in notes at the bottom, something like: > > funcname(args) [new in 3.2] [deprecated in 3.5] > Func description here. > > New in 3.2: the funcname() function was added. > Deprecated in 3.5: funcname() has been deprecated. Use anotherfunc() > instead. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “tag”. (ASIDE: I’m only marginally familiar with Sphinx, so I don’t know if “tag” has a specific meaning here. I dabble across lots of markup-to-full-docs generation tools; Sphinx is just one that I happen to know the least.) Are you saying that the source documentation would remain as-is, but something during the Sphinx _transformation_ would generate the new/deprecated tags? As long as those tags are clearly visible at-or-near the start, then I’m all for it. If that is what you propose, then I can think of several possible ways to structure the generated HTML & CSS—and from there I would just need to dive into the Sphinx transformations and figure out where to sprinkle the “tags”. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25467> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
