Eli Bendersky writes: > IMHO the right way to think about it is that the .rst files are by > far the more important documentation. Sometimes we forget that > most Python programmers are people who won't go into the source Why "source"? The whole point of docstrings is that they are *not* comments found only in the source, but available at run time. In fact, programmers who also use environments like Lisp or R (not to forget Idle) will reach for "help(mean)", and that works fine for Steven, because he provides such nice docstrings. Some people prefer to write separate manuals, and some modules *should* be documented that way because their internal complexity or whatever. That's true, but I would hope authors who prefer "literate programming" (or the poor man's lit prog that is writing only docstrings) are encouraged to do so when appropriate. Of course, like any other contribution, since that style is *not* currently supported by python-dev, they'd be asked to step up and support it themselves -- if a user reports the docs won't build, they need to address that like they would a build bug in the code.
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