On 7/11/06, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting. A guess: put the code that > isn't to be seen in the __test__ dict with a string key being the name > of the footnote?
That's right. > I don't think a ReST processor would like that much. > It would see references to footnotes that are never defined. Or perhaps > you're suggesting a non-ReST mechanism for the references? > I don't know how ReST processor is used. If you just filter the output of pydoc through a ReST processor, then you are right about undefined references. If, however, ReST processing is implemented inside pydoc, I don't see any problem in implementing __test__ lookup. > Also, for many of the use-cases we have, we do want the code in the > test, just not in such a prominent place, and not repeated more than once. I my use-cases, testing code is clobbering the documentation, but there is no easy way to move it outside of the docstrings without breaking the order of evaluation. I don't use a ReST processor, by I can read ReST formatted text with little difficulty. I would greatly appreciate if I could clean the docstrings without loosing the tests. BTW, another feature that I would greatly appreciate would be a unittest wrapper which makes each docstring in a separate test case. Also __new__ and __init__ method docstrings is the natural place to put set-up code. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
