On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Darren Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just realized, though, that I should probably be striving to conform with > the standard that the numpy and scipy folks put together: > http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/wiki/CodingStyleGuidelines and > http://svn.scipy.org/svn/numpy/trunk/numpy/doc/example.py . Any comments? I > think I have been relying too heavily on tables for the keyword arguments. I think that following their guidelines is a good idea for the most part, but we needn't adhere to them religiously. For one thing, matplotlib uses *a lot* more keyword args than either numpy or scipy, and what works for them for kwargs may not be best for us. In particular, if we use the format they suggest, I'm afraid our docstrings will simply take up too much space. For example, see http://mentat.za.net/numpy/refguide/functions.xhtml#all-a-axis-none-out-none . What if we formatted all the Line2d kwargs that way? It seems a bit bloated in terms of vertical space for the number of kwargs we need to handle, and so a ReST table may in fact be better. We want our documentation to be mostly consistent to aid the folks trying to put together bits and pieces of documentation from several projects to write in-house docs (which incorporate local docs) or books, but I'm not sure we need our doc formatting to be entirely consistent at the API level. JDH ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Matplotlib-devel mailing list Matplotlib-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
