On 12:55 am, gl...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 20:05, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
Are there lots of useless docstrings on nested function definitions
purely for the sake of twistedchecker? Or are there undocumented
nested functions that are actually a little bit difficult to
understand on their own?
twistedchecker does not presently require nested function definitions
to have docstrings. I recently merged a fix to an incongruity where it
was requiring this of classes defined within functions:
<https://github.com/twisted/twistedchecker/commit/4af4e97f99d6e5f683b65272a8dbe7bce2087aa7>.
So this one, at least, we can cross off for the future :).
The broader context of this suggestion was that we should inspect the
codebase to see what policy changes would improve the quality of the
code/documentation while reducing the effort required to develop and
maintain it.
It sounds like you have some ideas about such changes already. Does
that mean you'd like to suggest them (presumably in the form of issues
filed against twistedhecker) instead of doing this investigation?
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
