Django uses a lot of bootstrap/runtime patching under the hood, from custom 
metaclasses, explicit injection
pattern up to proxies at various ends.

I understand this is true on low level APIs and on classes we implement 
ourselves (Like passing the correct arguments when creating a django model).
But almost all the documentation in ref is connected to a class, function, 
method etc. This can be pushed into the source code and autodoced quite 
easily.
Anything that can’t be in a class can stay the way it is. Correct me if I’m 
wrong, It is almost certain that I am.
(Adding inline docs to django-stubs would help mitigate this, but 
coordinating documentation between 2 different projects would be a 
nightmare.)

I only see 2 downsides to my proposal:

   1. A big refactor to the codebase, There will be strings everywhere. 
   2. A larger install size.

​
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 8:53:44 PM UTC-5 Jörg Breitbart wrote:

> +1 on the idea for better inline docs, would be some relief for IDEs 
> figuring out a proper interface story boosting dev speed for rarely used 
> aspects, where currently one would have to search through the prosaic 
> online docs or end up browsing the django source.
>
> On the other hand I am not sure, if that an easy task to accomplish 
> without bigger refactoring. Django uses a lot of bootstrap/runtime 
> patching under the hood, from custom metaclasses, explicit injection 
> pattern up to proxies at various ends. Currently IDEs often give up 
> here, idk if more inline docs alone can change much or if the level of 
> abstraction within django would have to change to get a significant 
> improvement.
>
> Cheers,
> Jörg
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6c56c8b8-0521-42e7-a7fd-98d66ea3c79en%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to