On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote: > > I think there's a general agreement in this thread that we don't intend to > change the status quo. Both .rst docs and docstrings are important. The > remaining question is - can we use some tool to generates parts of the > former from the latter and thus avoid duplication and rot? > I don't think that duplication is much of an issue. Natural language understanding is not at the level yet where you can generate a meaningful summary from a longer text fully automatically (let alone vice versa :-) so I think having to write both a concise docstring and a longer more detailed description for the Doc tree is not a waste of effort at all. As for rot, it's just as likely that rot occurs as a *result* of autogeneration. Having to edit/patch the source code in order to improve the documentation most likely adds an extra barrier towards improving the docs. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20130922/85f5f82b/attachment.html>
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