Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > I have some working code following Dag advices (BTW, that transform > stuff its a real win!). Now I would like to know your opinions about > how the signatures should be rendered. Robert, if you see this, please > enter the discussion. > >
Great! Here's my opinions: For coordination purposes I have now assigned this to you: http://trac.cython.org/cython_trac/ticket/2 (If you haven't got a login there just send a .htpasswd file to Robert) As for signatures, I think that whatever you do, it should be parseable by epydoc if possible. See the links Stefan put up under the ticket. This pretty much defines the format for non-typed code I think (i.e. if the type is "object" then don't specify the type, and Python-only syntax will look like Python..) As for typed function signatures, I think just make it look like the Cython syntax, and whenever we actually support the "f(x: int)"-notation in Cython we can put in an option to support it in docstrings as well *shrug*. But an alternative is dropping the types I suppose (or making that part configurable; or even insert multiple lines with the first Python-only and the second explaining the types in prose). (If you look at the top of runtests.py, you can plug in epydoc as an optional testing library, and make a regression test named "tests/run/epydoc_docstrings.pyx" which only runs if epydoc is installed on the system and call parse_function_signature in the testcase directly). Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
