Nicola Larosa wrote: >>The reasons **I** am unhappy with the existing tools [#]_ (i.e. epydoc) >>is that they don't allow me to mark constants/functions/classes/methods >>as private, and they don't allow me to document constants. >> >> > >Epydoc does have the ability to avoid including private objects in the >generated docs. Even when you include them, it generates two versions of >the docs, one with and one without them. > > > > It's probably me *assuming* that epydoc only recognises double underscores as private. I'd still prefer a way of marking *within* the docstring (or by comments) that a method is private. I'd rather not have to name my objects around my docuemtnation tool.
I may be expecting too much though. Regards, Fuzzy http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python >>You could overcome these problems by parsing source code rather than >>importing and examining objects. You would obviously need to develop >>appropriate conventions. >> >> > >That's how HappyDoc works. Maybe someone could try and merge (or rather, >cherry-pick features from) the two tools. ;-) > > > > _______________________________________________ Doc-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/doc-sig
