Alexander Schmolck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Ah, well nice to see this finally going somewhere, although I'm a bit puzzled as to why my patch was "clearly not implemented" :)
Andy, wrt. to your points: 1. Yes, but see below. 2. Are you sure using inspect.ismethod is an improvement? I'm pretty sure I was aware of it and didn't use it for a reason -- from a superficial glance it appears to me that inspect.getmethod is just broken for this purpose. Or do you have a good reason why you'd like to exclude e.g. methods inherited from a builtin? I have no time to check right now, maybe the behavior of ismethod has changed or I remember it wrongly, but in general I think doc-lookup should be oblivious to changes that are transparent at the interface level and whether something is inherited from a builtin or not is should be considered as a mere implementation detail and not at all affect the documentation lookup. 3. I don't feel strongly about this but I'm personally not that keen on using comments as a substitute for docs -- I see no point in conflating these two mechanisms which serve quite different purposes (implementation elucidation vs interface description), especially if the comment is taken from *some other implementation*. 4. Certainly fine by me. 'as _____________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1038909> _____________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
