Re: docstrings style question
On Jan 9, 11:51 pm, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Brown wrote: I've got a series of modules which look like this: # # # Temperature Sense Test # # class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test I don't like the duplicated information: But the comment is attractive, and the docstring self.__doc__ is already in use in the test log. I've read that all modules and classes should have docstrings, but I don't really have anything else to say, and each module contains only one class. I don't think that Temperature Sense Test class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test would be a real improvement. What do you think? since you already seem to cater to your audience (clearly marked comments for people browsing the code, brief docstrings for the test log), I don't really see why you should change anything. I've read that all modules and classes should have docstrings if nobody's going to read them, there's no reason to add them. don't treat generic style advice as dogma. /F Well, trivial modules certainly don't need much documentation, but he didn't say they were trivial. I assumed there was more to them then he showed. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: docstrings style question
-On [20080110 06:51], Steve Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I don't like the duplicated information: But the comment is attractive, I find it unattractive to be honest. and the docstring self.__doc__ is already in use in the test log. I've read that all modules and classes should have docstrings, but I don't really have anything else to say, and each module contains only one class. The ultimate test is running `pydoc your.module` or running epydoc on your source and see how well the resulting documentation is built up. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
RE: docstrings style question
On Behalf Of Steve Brown What do you think? I think that comments are for maintainers, and docstrings are for users. Some of the things I use comments for: * Visually separate classes (using a syntax-highlighting editor) * Explain algorithm choices * Explain bug fixes so I don't later fix code back to the buggy version Some of the things I use docstrings for: * Describe interface (inputs/outputs) * Sample usage I personally don't use doctests, but that's one more use of docstrings. Regards, Ryan Ginstrom -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: docstrings style question
Russ P. wrote: On Jan 9, 9:47 pm, Steve Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a series of modules which look like this: # # # Temperature Sense Test # # class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test I don't like the duplicated information: But the comment is attractive, and the docstring self.__doc__ is already in use in the test log. I've read that all modules and classes should have docstrings, but I don't really have anything else to say, and each module contains only one class. I don't think that Temperature Sense Test class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test would be a real improvement. What do you think? It's still duplicated information. I tend to be a bit skimpy with one-line comments for classes and methods, but I think a more complete ( style) comment is often appropriate for the top of the file. I'm sure you can think of more to say than Temperature Sense Test. exactly my opinion What temperature? What kind of temperature sensor? What kind of test is it, and why are you doing it? That may all be obvious in context, but you've provided no context in your post. Also, if the module is of any significant size, you might want to provide a clue about who wrote it. Then, if someone has a question about it later, they will know who to ask. I tend to mention the main use cases for test classes (especially) and also a human readable description of what can happen (forgive me the missing line breaks). Something like this: class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test. This class assures that the connection to the hardware sensor can be established. It also checks a reference sensor that always reports a certain value so that one can be sure correct data values are reported. hth martin -- http://noneisyours.marcher.name http://feeds.feedburner.com/NoneIsYours You are not free to read this message, by doing so, you have violated my licence and are required to urinate publicly. Thank you. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: docstrings style question
Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 9, 11:51 pm, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Brown wrote: I've got a series of modules which look like this: # # # Temperature Sense Test # # class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test I don't like the duplicated information: But the comment is attractive, and the docstring self.__doc__ is already in use in the test log. I've read that all modules and classes should have docstrings, but I don't really have anything else to say, and each module contains only one class. I don't think that Temperature Sense Test class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test would be a real improvement. What do you think? since you already seem to cater to your audience (clearly marked comments for people browsing the code, brief docstrings for the test log), I don't really see why you should change anything. I've read that all modules and classes should have docstrings if nobody's going to read them, there's no reason to add them. don't treat generic style advice as dogma. /F Well, trivial modules certainly don't need much documentation, but he didn't say they were trivial. I assumed there was more to them then he showed. All of the complexity is in the test framework. I've been working on paring back the tests to make them simple to understand, create and modify, which is how I've come to this: I'm still trying to remove lines. The test itself is a now a linear script of 20-40 lines, and I'm still working on them. However, it is relatively important to make the documentation right for these simple scripts. The docstring/comment does need to show some embedded dependancies, I just chose one without any. I realise from reading Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven's comment that I should probably also care what epydoc makes of my doc strings, -- that's an additional constraint. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: docstrings style question
On Jan 10, 2008 12:47 AM, Steve Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a series of modules which look like this: # # # Temperature Sense Test # # class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test I don't like the duplicated information: But the comment is attractive, and the docstring self.__doc__ is already in use in the test log. I've read that all modules and classes should have docstrings, but I don't really have anything else to say, and each module contains only one class. I don't think that Temperature Sense Test class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test would be a real improvement. What do you think? I recommend a careful reading of PEP 257. You shouldn't waste your time creating (at best) decorative comments, like: # # # Temperature Sense Test # # class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test Remember that comments have to maintained along with the rest of the code, so unnecessary ones just create more work for you. Any time you can replace a comment with self-explanatory code, you should. Here's a vast improvement: class TemperatureSenseTester(ar_test.AR_TEST): -- Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: docstrings style question
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 10, 2008 12:47 AM, Steve Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a series of modules which look like this: # # # Temperature Sense Test # # class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test I don't like the duplicated information: But the comment is attractive, and the docstring self.__doc__ is already in use in the test log. I've read that all modules and classes should have docstrings, but I don't really have anything else to say, and each module contains only one class. I don't think that Temperature Sense Test class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test would be a real improvement. What do you think? I recommend a careful reading of PEP 257. You shouldn't waste your time creating (at best) decorative comments, like: # # # Temperature Sense Test # # class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test Remember that comments have to maintained along with the rest of the code, so unnecessary ones just create more work for you. Any time you can replace a comment with self-explanatory code, you should. Here's a vast improvement: class TemperatureSenseTester(ar_test.AR_TEST): -- Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, I'm working in that direction. At present there is still code that parses the test sequence to get the class name, but I'm rebuilding that. However, there will still be sufficient information for some of the tests to justify one doc string or comment as well as the class name. Is it possible to get from an object to a class module doc string? Something like self.class.module.__doc__ ? I'm not able to do an assignment inside the test class, because I have to keep that clean, but I can do assignments inside the parent test class. Steve -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: docstrings style question
What I'm trying to do with the tests is pare them back so that the code explicitly and concisely documents the tests. It is important that the comments and doc strings NOT contain information about how Temperature Sense works because that is outside the scope of the test. More generally, comments like this i++#increments i indicate that the author thinks that the most complex thing present is the syntax, a comment like this: i++#next voltage indicates that the author thinks the most complex thing present is the variable mapping. For the readers and maintainers of these tests, the most complex thing present is the syntax, not the test logic, so if I need to add more documentation, it will look like this: # Temperature Sense Test # Lines starting with # are comments # Variables are case sensitive # Tab characters will break this file -- and go from there. Steve Martin Marcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Russ P. wrote: -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: docstrings style question
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:09:26 +1100, Steve Brown wrote: What I'm trying to do with the tests is pare them back so that the code explicitly and concisely documents the tests. Yes, this is good. It is important that the comments and doc strings NOT contain information about how Temperature Sense works because that is outside the scope of the test. More generally, comments like this i++#increments i indicate that the author thinks that the most complex thing present is the syntax, I would suggest that it indicates an author who hates writing documentation, but has been told that (s)he *must* do it. That is the archetypal example of the pointless comment that is worse than no comment at all. a comment like this: i++#next voltage indicates that the author thinks the most complex thing present is the variable mapping. To me, that indicates the author both hates writing documentation, and either can't think of descriptive variable names, or refuses to use them out of some misguided sense of optimization. For the readers and maintainers of these tests, the most complex thing present is the syntax, not the test logic, so if I need to add more documentation, it will look like this: # Temperature Sense Test # Lines starting with # are comments # Variables are case sensitive # Tab characters will break this file -- and go from there. Your trusting your production code to developers who don't even know the most basic elements of syntax like what is a comment? That's pretty foolh^H^H^H^H^H brave. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: docstrings style question
Steve Brown wrote: I've got a series of modules which look like this: # # # Temperature Sense Test # # class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test I don't like the duplicated information: But the comment is attractive, and the docstring self.__doc__ is already in use in the test log. I've read that all modules and classes should have docstrings, but I don't really have anything else to say, and each module contains only one class. I don't think that Temperature Sense Test class Test3(ar_test.AR_TEST): Temperature Sense Test would be a real improvement. What do you think? since you already seem to cater to your audience (clearly marked comments for people browsing the code, brief docstrings for the test log), I don't really see why you should change anything. I've read that all modules and classes should have docstrings if nobody's going to read them, there's no reason to add them. don't treat generic style advice as dogma. /F -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
