On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 19:01, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >>> >>> 2. Should we start using function annotations? >> >> No, I think that information is better stored in the function description. >> > > Why? Putting it in the signature makes it very succinct and a simple > glance at the doc to see what type/ABC is expected.
Well, I guess it's just not been explored. Feel free to try it out if you wish, though. > >>> >>> 3. Are brackets for optional arguments (e.g. ``def fxn(a [, b=None [, >>> c=None]])``) really necessary when default argument values are >>> present? And do we really need to nest the brackets when it is obvious >>> that having on optional argument means the rest are optional as well? >> >> Actually, the defaults are usually documented in the description not >> the signature. >> > > OK, but that doesn't make it optimal. And that still doesn't answer my > question of whether all of those nested brackets are truly necessary. All I can say is that it is the style/convention. > >>> >>> 4. The var directive is not working even though the docs list it as a >>> valid directive; so is it still valid and something is broken, or the >>> docs need to be updated? >> >> The docs should be updated. "data" is the one to use now. > > So the 'data' directive turns into any variable, not just a module variables? "data" is for module level objects. If you're documenting properties or attributes in classes, use "attribute". -- Regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ 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
