I don't really care about whether to display TESTS:: or not, but we really should have a proper parser for our docstring style. This ticket adds yet another regex hack. E.g. sphinxcontrib-napoleon is an example for how it is done correctly:
* Nicer typeset output since the docbuilder has semantic knowledge, e.g. http://bwanamarko.alwaysdata.net/napoleon/format_exception.html * Less ambiguity (single or double "--"?) * Fewer potential for mistakes as you don't have to do the formatting by hand, no standard double backticks that always have to be put at a certain place etc... * Potential for automatted testing: If you can parse the documented argspec then you can compare with the actual argspec A slightly related question, do we really need a special Sage docstring style. Its just unnecessary. Just use a standard that already has tooling support (like sphinx-napoleon), or at least a minor extension thereof. Lots of projects use Google style, e.g. Khan academy. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
