RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jan 27 05:42:16 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/060141.html

On 29 Dec 2005, at 23:13, Fredrik Lundh wrote:

> 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.

I think that would be a good thing to do no matter what markup is  
used.  It always irritates me when I do 'help(sys.something)' and get  
one line of ASCII art that's probably useful to the module author but  
nobody else.

robey

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/060141.html below:

[Python-Dev] [Doc-SIG] that library reference, again