On 2/15/07, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/15/07, Keir Mierle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On the DocstringStandard page I have also put a completely re-done docstring > > for the 'contour' function from matplotlib. I think it is far more readable > > than the original [3]. JDH and other matplotlibheads, what do you think? > > Travis, do you find my additions reasonable? Scipy maintainers, would you > > consider adopting this format (especially if someone helps with the > > gruntwork)? > > It looks like you took the initial proposal rather than the result of > that discussion. Please see the document that we came up with: > > http://svn.scipy.org/svn/numpy/trunk/numpy/doc/HOWTO_DOCUMENT.txt
Ah, I apologize for not checking the dates; I thought the HOWTO_DOCUMENT.txt was the older proposal. Nevertheless, I think the issues raised in my proposed version are significant enough to warrent further discussion; especially for the more demanding needs of matplotlib. I would like to re-open this discussion to be sure there is consensus among the numpy, scipy, and matplotlib folk before I invest signifcant time into massaging the docstrings into the right form. I am clearly biased as I invested time and thought into the proposed docstring format I posted [1], but nevertheless I do not like the style listed in the HOWTO_DOCUMENT.txt. The different sections have different styles of headings, i.e. the difference style for :Pamaraters: and Examples, which is not good for readability. Furthermore, it does not specify enough formatting, for e.g. keyword arguments with defaults. For specifics, here are my issues with the current HOWTO: * Non-capitalized headers Capitalized headers are far more visually obvious when viewed on a text terminal (i.e. via function? in IPython) * Two different header styles The distinction between :Parameters: and Examples -------- seems unnecessary; if this is necessary for reST, could a preprocessing step not fix this? The inconsistency appears unprofessional when viewed in a terminal. * No suggestions on how to handle functions which have multiple invocations, i.e. multiple function signatures. I have a proposal for this in [1]. * Parameters / Returns instead of INPUTS / OUTPUTS. This is no doubt a preference, but nevertheless I vastly prefer having INPUTS / OUTPUTS instead of Parameters / Returns. I understand that the parameter/return form is more common for Python, so I realize this is contentious. Nevertheless, inputs / outputs has the clear advantage of being informative to someone who is just starting programming and may not realize the meanings of parameters / returns; but input/output is absolutely clear even to the non-programmer. If it comes down to me writing a parser for my proposed format, I will do that. Keir [1] http://scipy.org/DocstringStandard ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Matplotlib-devel mailing list Matplotlib-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
