On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:12, Georg Brandl <g.bra...@gmx.net> wrote: > Brett Cannon schrieb: > >>>> 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? >>> >>> We've discussed that once on the doc-SIG, and I agreed that the bracketing >>> is not really pretty, especially if it's heavily nested. Python functions >>> where it makes sense should use the default-value syntax, while C functions >>> without kwargs support need to keep the brackets. >>> >> >> That was my thinking. >> >>> Making this consistent throughout the docs is no small task, of course. >>> >> >> Nope, but perhaps all new docs should stop their use. > > OK. Perhaps we can sprint a bit on automatic replacement at PyCon. >
That's a possibility. >>>> 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? >>> >>> (First, you're confusing "directive" and "role" which led to some confusion >>> on Benjamin's part.) >>> >>> Where is a "var" role documented? If it is, it is a bug. >> >> http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/documenting/markup.html#inline-markup. > > I assume you're referring to "Variable names are an exception, they should > be marked simply with *var*."? Do you have suggestions how to improve > clarity? > "... variables, including function/method arguments, ...". -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
