-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oben schrieb:
> Thanks for the hints (unfortunately berlios.de seems to be down right
> now). However, a better solution would be to have an extension which
> integrates sections in docstrings into the final TOC. Maybe one day
> I'll have some time to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Max Battcher schrieb:
> On 10/8/2009 1:53, Guenter Milde wrote:
>>
>> On 2009-10-07, John H Palmieri wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 1:47 pm, Oben wrote:
>>
I browsed a bit in Sage's doc and so far only found the style
mentioned by Fernando (INPUT
On 10/8/2009 1:53, Guenter Milde wrote:
>
> On 2009-10-07, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>> On Oct 5, 1:47 pm, Oben wrote:
>
>>> I browsed a bit in Sage's doc and so far only found the style
>>> mentioned by Fernando (INPUT ..). Do I get you right that you plan to
>>> convert these to :param:... marku
On 2009-10-07, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Oct 5, 1:47 pm, Oben wrote:
>> I browsed a bit in Sage's doc and so far only found the style
>> mentioned by Fernando (INPUT ..). Do I get you right that you plan to
>> convert these to :param:... markup in the future?
> A few days ago, I opened a tra
On Oct 5, 1:47 pm, Oben wrote:
> I browsed a bit in Sage's doc and so far only found the style
> mentioned by Fernando (INPUT ..). Do I get you right that you plan to
> convert these to :param:... markup in the future?
A few days ago, I opened a trac ticket for Sage to document this
markup and
Ok, let's reopen this thread in a year or so and check the then
current situation of docstrings in the wild :)
On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, Fernando Perez wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Oben wrote:
>
> > @Fernando: Do you know if integrating the numpy doc extension into
> > Sphinx i
Howdy,
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Oben wrote:
>
> @Fernando: Do you know if integrating the numpy doc extension into
> Sphinx is in discussion or already in progress?
I don't think it's happened yet, though I only joined this list very
recently. But I'm pretty sure nobody in numpy would b
On Oct 5, 4:23 am, Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> > But sage doesn't use the :param: style for parameters, does it? It
> > uses all-caps for informal section delimiting and regular bullet lists
> > (with dashes) for parameters (this is from the 'f
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Fernando Perez wrote:
> But sage doesn't use the :param: style for parameters, does it? It
> uses all-caps for informal section delimiting and regular bullet lists
> (with dashes) for parameters (this is from the 'factor' docstring):
>
> INPUT:
>
>
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Mike Hansen wrote:
> Sage (http://www.sagemath.org/doc/) does use Sphinx's default markup
> (although not idiomatically in many cases due to autoconversion from a
> previous markup.) However, a patch was just accepted to allow $...$
> to delimit math mode.
But s
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Oben wrote:
> Concerning Python/reST in general, does anyone know a project which
> uses Sphinx' default reST markup (i.e. not numpy doc) in docstrings
> extensively?
Sage (http://www.sagemath.org/doc/) does use Sphinx's default markup
(although not idioma
On Oct 4, 3:22 am, Fernando Perez wrote:
> ...
> ...
>
> The numpy doc standard may not be perfect, but many of us find that
> it's a very good compromise between plaintext readability and final
> doc generation quality (the :param: style of docstring is very
> annoying for users to read in plain
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Oben wrote:
> But seriously, if reST and Sphinx are supposed to be the standard for
> Python documentation, isn't backwards to force shifting API
> documentation out of the docstrings? AFAIK the official Python
> documentation is written mostly outside the sou
On Saturday 03 October 2009 18:13:51 Oben wrote:
> But seriously, if reST and Sphinx are supposed to be the standard for
> Python documentation, isn't backwards to force shifting API
> documentation out of the docstrings? AFAIK the official Python
> documentation is written mostly outside the sour
Thanks for the hints (unfortunately berlios.de seems to be down right
now). However, a better solution would be to have an extension which
integrates sections in docstrings into the final TOC. Maybe one day
I'll have some time to work on this .. and maybe until then someone
else has done this alre
la, 2009-10-03 kello 20:14 +, Guenter Milde kirjoitti:
> On 2009-10-03, Oben wrote:
>
> > In my workflow I really prefer to have all documentation in the source
> > file and thus would benefit from sections in docstrings.
>
> You might consider using PyLit (http://pylit.berlios.de).
Another
On 2009-10-03, Oben wrote:
> In my workflow I really prefer to have all documentation in the source
> file and thus would benefit from sections in docstrings.
You might consider using PyLit (http://pylit.berlios.de).
Günter
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received th
17 matches
Mail list logo
