Re: [Doc-SIG] Double specification of function signatures?
"Brett Cannon" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.python.devel,gmane.comp.python.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:29 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 the > function signatures from C code on-the-fly or in a preprocessing step (might > be a good GSoC project), but for functions written in Python I'm of the > opinion the docstrings should not include function signatures. They shouldn't. Maybe the tempfile module came from a third-party that had some internal doc rule of mentioning the call signature. Regardless, just rip it out. -Brett _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python-python-dev%40m.gmane.org