On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Aaron S. Meurer<[email protected]> wrote: > > Sounds like a good policy. We already require tests for everything, > so it is not too much more of a hassle. I think we should have at > least a docstring for all classes as well, since you can do > help(Class) and it gives you information on it. Maybe you don't need > a doctest for a class docstring, but having at least a docstring would > be nice.
That's a good idea too. I think the class docstring should contain a few examples of the usage of the class. > > What about adding docstrings of new functions to Sphinx? Quite a few > functions' docstrings are not available on docs.sympy.org because no > one has added them to the Sphinx docs. All a person has to do is add > a ".. automethod:: function" line for whatever function they write, or > add a new file if it is a new module or one that isn't in Sphinx yet. > It could be a bit more of a hassle as most people don't know Sphinx. > Would it maybe be possible to automatically pull together autodocs for > all functions in an __init__.py file that have docstrings (which > should be all functions in any __init__.py file). Sphinx can automatically add all methods (that have a docstring) of a class, so I think that's all we need. I would leave this to the common sense of the reviewer to check that the function is included in the docs. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
