On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:19 PM, James Pearson <james.m.pear...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Priit Laes <plaes...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> 2) Some of the modules already contain the brief description about the >> module. Having short description also helps people get a quick grips >> about the functionality that's implemented there.. > > While I agree with the remarks about copyright notices (at least for any > "normal" files - if a file is pulled from another source, I'm cool with > having its copyright blurb put at the top), I think module-level docstrings > can be quite useful. I don't know about /requiring/ them, as that tends to > produce the same results as students who are told that every function must > have a Javadoc comment describing all of its parameters :), but having a > short line or two saying what the file contains, if non-obvious, is nice, > for those of us not that familiar with the codebase.
Definitely, we should have module docstrings where applicable, that's what they are for. Ondrej -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
