Robey Pointer wrote:
> > [Fredrik Lundh]
> >> Really?
> >
> > Yes, really.
>
> Just out of curiosity (really -- not trying to jump into the flames)
> why not just use epydoc? If it's good enough for 3rd-party python
> libraries, isn't that just a small step from being good enough for
> the builtin libraries?
but epydoc is a docstring-based format, right?
I'm trying to put together a light-weight alternative to the markup
used for, primarily, the current library reference.
moving all of (or parts of) the reference documentation in to the
library source code would be an alternative, of course [1], but that
would basically mean starting over from scratch.
(but tighter integration is on my list; with a better semantic markup,
you can "import" reference documentation into a module's docstrings
at runtime, the builtin help can point you directly to the documentation
for a given class, etc.).
</F>
1) I'm using a mix of wiki-based introductions and machine generated
markup for e.g. the Tkinter manual; an example:
http://effbot.org/tkinterbook/listbox.htm
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