Mike Taylor wrote: > +1 except I would probably not use a docstring - how about: > > # > # Copyright (c) 2003-2005 Open Source Applications Foundation > # See http://osafoundation.org/Chandler_0_1_license_terms.htm for > license details > #
I think there are a couple of reason why comments would be better. First is that it would be useful to have this info in the automatically generated API documentation as well. And the first docstring should also describe the purpose of the module. You can see an example here: http://www.osafoundation.org/docs/current/api/Chandler-module.html The second is that it is slightly easier to edit a dosctring than a comment (although some editors handle block comments as well). -- Heikki Toivonen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
