Hi Georg,
> I'm not sure how to "fix" this. Even if you could get Sphinx to import
> the contents of baz via foo, the __module__ attribute of classes and
> functions would be wrong, and therefore these wouldn't be documented if
> you don't give them explicitly as members.
>
> Maybe the solution would be a way to register "module aliases", to say
> "this module should be known as that module".
Perhaps that would work. On a slightly different but related note (about
reusing
existing documentation), when using a 3rd-party library under the hood (and
perhaps exposing its functions selectively) I find the
"versionadded"/"versionchanged" directives can be misleading. You have to
rewrite the documentation omitting those directives, because they relate to the
version of the library you're using rather than your own software. This is
unfortunate, though it has not been too painful so far because the incidence of
such cases has been small for me. But a long-term WIBNIF (Wouldn't It Be Nice
IF) would be some scheme that allowed you to easily transform and/or redirect
the documentation nodes for specific entities before they were rendered. That
might require digging into the docutils level, though.
Anyway, thanks again for Sphinx - I love it!
Regards,
Vinay
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sphinx-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sphinx-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sphinx-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sphinx-dev?hl=en.
