Christian Tanzer wrote: > > "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@lemburg.com> wrote: > > > > IMHO, David Goodger's (<dgoodger@bigfoot.com>) idea of using a > > > __docs__ dictionary is a better solution: > > > > > > - It provides all docstrings for the attributes of an object in a > > > single place. > > > > > > * Handy in interactive mode. > > > * This simplifies the generation of documentation considerably. > > > > > > - It is easier to explain in the documentation > > > > The downside is that it doesn't work well together with > > class inheritance: docstrings of the above form can > > be overridden or inherited just like any other class > > attribute. > > Yep. That's why David also proposed a `doc' function combining the > `__docs__' of a class with all its ancestor's __docs__. The same can be done for __doc__<attrname>__ style attributes: a helper function would just need to look at dir(Class) and then extract the attribute doc strings it finds. It could also do a DFS search to find a complete API description of the class by emulating attribute lookup and combine method and attribute docstrings to produce some nice online documentation output. > > > Normally, Python concatenates adjacent strings. It doesn't do this > > > with docstrings. I think Python's behavior would be more consistent > > > if docstrings were concatenated like any other strings. > > > > Huh ? It does... > > > > >>> class C: > > ... "first line"\ > > ... "second line" > > ... > > >>> C.__doc__ > > 'first linesecond line' > > > > And the same works for the attribute doc strings too. > > Surprise. I tried it this morning. Didn't use a backslash, though. And almost > overlooked it now. You could also wrap the doc string in parenthesis or use a triple quote string. > > > > b = 2 > > > > > > > > def x(self): > > > > "C.x doc string" > > > > y = 3 > > > > return 1 > > > > > > > > "b's doc string" > > > > > > > > Since the definition of method "x" currently does not reset the > > > > used assignment name variable, it is still valid when the compiler > > > > reaches the docstring "b's doc string" and thus assigns the string > > > > to __doc__b__. > > > > > > This is rather surprising behavior. Does this mean that a string in > > > the middle of a function definition would be interpreted as the > > > docstring of the function? > > > > No, since at the beginning of the function the name variable > > is set to NULL. > > Fine. Could the attribute docstrings follow the same pattern, then? They could and probably should by resetting the variable after all constructs which do not assign attributes. > > > > A possible solution to this problem would be resetting the name > > > > variable for all non-expression nodes. > > > > > > IMHO, David Goodger's proposal of indenting the docstring relative to the > > > attribute it refers to is a better solution. > > > > > > If that requires too many changes to the parser, the name variable > > > should be reset for all statement nodes. > > > > See my other mail: indenting is only allowed for blocks of > > code and these are usually started with a colon -- doesn't > > work here. > > Too bad. > > It's-still-a-great-addition-to-Python ly, > Christian Me thinks so too ;-) -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4