"Barry A. Warsaw" wrote: > > >>>>> "NS" == Neil Schemenauer <nas@python.ca> writes: > > >> What's the current thinking about making docstrings optional? > >> Does everybody agree on Gustavo's patch? > > NS> 10% space saving? That doesn't seem to be worth the effort. > NS> OTOH, I'm not dealing with any platforms that are memory > NS> constrained right now. > > Personally I don't care either for the same reasons. I'll just note > that what Emacs used to do (maybe it still does, I dunno), is extract > all its inlined docstrings into a separate file which could be thrown > away if you didn't want to pay for the bloat. All that complexity was > built in a time when 300KB or so of docstrings really could make a > huge difference for download times or storage resources. You should also consider the possibility of using the macros for translating the docs-strings. They are a form of markup. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Company & Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/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