RetroSearch Browse

Tue Feb 4 13:14:30 CET 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-February/132256.html

On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 02:21:51 -0800
Larry Hastings <larry at hastings.org> wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 01:41 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> > Clever, but due to the "hidden" space it also increases the frustration factor
> > for people trying to find out "why is this accepted as a signature and not this".
> >
> > I don't think a well-chosen visible separator is worse off, such as "--\n".
> 
> I could live with that.  To be explicit: the signature would then be of 
> the form
> 
>     <name-of-function(...)\n--\n
> 
> The scanning function would look for "<name-of-function>(" at the 
> front.  If it found it it'd scan forwards in the docstring for 
> ")\n--\n".  If it found *that*, then it would declare success.

This would have to be checked for layout regressions. If the docstring
is formatted using a ReST-to-HTML converter, what will be the effect?

Regards

Antoine.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-February/132256.html below:

[Python-Dev] The docstring hack for signature information has to go