Re: [Doc-SIG] [Python-Dev] Double specification of function signatures?

2008-04-27 Thread skip
Brett> They shouldn't. Maybe the tempfile module came from a third-party Brett> that had some internal doc rule of mentioning the call signature. Brett> Regardless, just rip it out. Done. Skip ___ Doc-SIG maillist - Doc-SIG@python.org htt

Re: [Doc-SIG] Double specification of function signatures?

2008-04-27 Thread skip
Michael> It seems that any documentation or help tool worth its salt Michael> should fetch the parameters from the definition and so Michael> including them in the docstring should be redundant Michael> duplication. That's my position as well. Currently we have no way to extract

Re: [Doc-SIG] Double specification of function signatures?

2008-04-27 Thread Michael Foord
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While cleaning up the documentation for the tempfile module I noticed that the docstrings for the mk*temp functions in the module itself list their signatures (incompletely) in the first line. I don't know if that was intentional, but it seems both redundant and error-pr

[Doc-SIG] Double specification of function signatures?

2008-04-27 Thread skip
While cleaning up the documentation for the tempfile module I noticed that the docstrings for the mk*temp functions in the module itself list their signatures (incompletely) in the first line. I don't know if that was intentional, but it seems both redundant and error-prone to me. The help() func

Re: [Doc-SIG] autogenerating API docs using sphinx

2008-04-27 Thread Georg Brandl
Ondrej Certik schrieb: On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ondrej Certik schrieb: > Hi, > > I wrote a short script for autogenerating API from sources, the output > are .rst files that sphinx can parse and generate the docs in the > modules/index secti