Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
Nesting of class/method and class/data directives recommended in 584f9c213a6d.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
___
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
Backported in r88324 and r88328.
--
resolution: accepted - fixed
stage: patch review - committed/rejected
status: pending - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org:
--
status: open - pending
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Georg Brandl ge...@python.org added the comment:
Yes, it's the new recommended style. (Please add to documenting/ when
convenient :)
--
nosy: +georg.brandl
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com added the comment:
Guys, this issue is pending for a long time. Anything else needed before a
commit is done?
--
status: pending - open
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
Changes by Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com:
--
status: open - pending
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
Since Éric grabbed Assigned To:, I was expecting him to ;=). But since he is
doing enough other stuff, I will unless there are conflicts in the .rst I do
not know how to fix.
--
status: pending - open
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
My current schedule is a bit crazy and I’ve had no time for Python bugs.
I changed “programming” to “programmatic”, slightly tweaked the phrasing for
the --ignore-* options to make them hopefully more understandable and similar,
and committed
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
Éric beat me. Better that he finish.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
___
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
Minor whitespace and markup edits make r87273. Please review and tell me if
it’s okay for backport or if there are further improvements to be done first.
I promise I won’t beat anyone ;-)
--
___
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com added the comment:
Éric,
The nested methods are nice, though a bit unusual IMHO. Is this the recommended
new way to markup methods of objects? [Because AFAIK it's not used much in
other docs]
--
status: open - pending
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
The nesting allows logical grouping in source and output, saves a bit of
typing, and has been added to a number of files by Benjamin Peterson. I’d say
it’s recommended :)
--
status: pending - open
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com added the comment:
Éric, good idea - I'll do it.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
___
___
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com added the comment:
There's something weird going on with cmdoption... I've applied for
subscription to the docs mailing list, but while I'm awaiting moderator
approval, here's the brain-dump. Suppose this option description:
.. program:: trace
.. cmdoption::
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
I noticed too that the second form given in a cmdoption directive cannot be
linked to from an option construct. The workaround looks like this:
:option:`--long -l`. This uses a generic Sphinx (or reST) property: When
using :role:`text thing`,
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com added the comment:
Éric,
I sent an inquiry about this problem to the d...@python.org list. In the
meantime, I will implement it with the workaround you suggest (I checked it
works in this case too).
--
___
Python
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com added the comment:
Attaching an updated patch for Doc/library/trace.rst in 3.2
Changed the formatting of command-line options per Éric's suggestion of using
program/cmdoption/option combos (great idea Éric - it looks much better).
--
Added file:
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
Thanks for your work on this!
``dir/package/module.cover`` → :file:`{dir}/{package}/{module}.cover`
'' looks wrong.
``os.pathsep``: You can use :data:`os.pathsep` to get a link, I think.
+.. method:: CoverageResults.update(other)
FTR,
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com added the comment:
Attaching an updated patch following Éric's suggestions:
* ``dir/package/module.cover`` -- FIXED
* '' looks wrong -- FIXED to just
* ``os.pathsep`` -- FIXED
* method:: CoverageResults.update(other) -- OK, let's leave it for a
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
Duh, I forgot some words: The file uses one or two dots *after full stops*
inconsistently. I don’t think you have to change that now, we can make it
consistent later (or not, as it does not affect the output), as we do with line
wrapping.
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
Éric, please feel free to commit (and even grab Assigned To:) when you feel
patch is ready. You can do final review better than me.
--
versions: -Python 3.1
___
Python tracker
Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org:
--
assignee: terry.reedy - eric.araujo
status: open - pending
versions: +Python 3.1
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
___
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
Divided command-line options logically into sub-sections and improved
their explanations
Using the program/cmdoption combo may be a good idea here.
--
nosy: +eric.araujo
___
Python tracker
Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org:
--
nosy: +d...@python -georg.brandl
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
___
___
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com added the comment:
Alexander,
I'm submitting a patch for Doc/library/trace.rst for 3.2, incorporating the
stylistic changes you propose.
It would be really great to see this fixed for the next release of 3.2, since
the documentation improvement is major, and
Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
So I'm open to ideas and am willing to submit improved patches for 3.2
I offered some ideas in my last message. In addition, I would like to see
profile and trace documentation to converge to similar structure and use
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com added the comment:
Alexander, I agree that the documentation isn't yet in a perfect state and can
be further improved. Since there's still time for the next milestone of 3.2,
there's no reason not to improve it.
So I'm open to ideas and am willing to submit
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com added the comment:
I think it makes sense to commit the same patch to 2.7, is this planned?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
___
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
Fine with me.
Alexander, do you have the fixed up version you committed to 2.6, or should Eli
revise the attachment here for 2.7?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
The fixed up version is just r83549. It may merge cleanly with py3k - I believe
doc changes are trivial if any between 2.6 and 3.x.
I would like this to go through another round of reviews without release
calendar
Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org added the comment:
You have about 5 hours as of this writing to apply the doc patch for Python
2.6.6 rc1 and then it will be too late to get it into Python 2.6.6 (though I
might make an exception for doc-only patches like this, for post rc1).
While I haven't
Changes by Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org:
--
priority: release blocker - high
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
___
___
Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
I'll try to meet the deadline. :-)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
___
Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
Oh, this is not assigned to me. Terry, do you need help with this?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
I cannot do commits yet, so please do it. I expected this to be picked up by a
doc person.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
Committed in release26-maint, r83549, to beat the rc1 deadline. I'll comment
on a few improvements that we can do for 3.x later.
Eli,
I needed to fix white space issues in your patch before committing. Please run
Changes by Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu:
--
assignee: d...@python - tjreedy
nosy: -barry, d...@python
stage: commit review - patch review
versions: -Python 2.6
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
Changes by Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net:
--
nosy: +belopolsky
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
___
___
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com added the comment:
Attaching a patch vs. the 2.6 maintenance branch for the Doc/library/trace.rst
file
* Fixed some formatting issues for command line options and class references
* Documented all relevant user-accessible methods
* Divided command-line options
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
To the doc person who reads this: this patch is only the first for this issue.
It is being submitted now since the 2.6.6 release candidate is due in 10 days.
Please leave the issue open after committing this.
I have read the diff but not the
Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org added the comment:
If the changes are to the documentation only, you've confirmed that the docs
build in 2.6.6, and you get the changes in before 2.6.6rc1, then you can go
ahead and commit them. I don't need to review them too closely - I trust you -
but if
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
I am reviewing doc + patch against the code. Do not commit yet.
--
assignee: d...@python - tjreedy
stage: - patch review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue9264
New submission from Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com:
The documentation of the standard 'trace' module (Doc/library/trace.rst) is
sorely lacking. Arguments are not explained, some key methods are not
documented at all, and the CoverageResults class isn't documented.
Usage of these appears in
43 matches
Mail list logo
