New submission from Brett Cannon <br...@python.org>: If you look at the docs for the unittest.expectedFailure decorator you will notice it shows a set of empty parentheses since it is set with a function directive. But since it's a decorator those empty parentheses are not accurate.
If you want to view the docs as showing common usage -- like the docs for the other decorators in unittest -- then those empty parentheses need to go. An @ should also probably be added as well. But if you view it more as how the decorator is called -- like with importlib.util.module_for_loader does -- then it should have an argument for the callable being passed in. This would also mean that all the other decorators in unittest need a second set of parentheses taking a callable as their argument as well. Perhaps it's time we added a decorator directive that adds the @ sign and does not insert empty parentheses? ---------- assignee: georg.brandl components: Documentation messages: 90718 nosy: brett.cannon, georg.brandl priority: low severity: normal stage: needs patch status: open title: docs for unittest.expectedFailure do not syntactically show it's a decorator type: feature request _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6522> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com