On 1/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Ramm wrote: > I'm definitely not the expert here, but it looks like the current > version of pythondoc allows you to use docstrings as well as > comments. >
yes I believe it did it back then too, my problem with those comments is that they won't show up on in the shell since they are # based and not proper docstrings, which make us have 2 sets of comments, so if we say we'll use pythondoc and not accept any non-docstrings comments then why use pythondoc in the first place?
> But, I think that having some kind of API docs (any kind at all > really) is better than nothing, so if you're willing to help make this > happen with epydoc that's the way we should go ;) > > We really need API documentation as soon as possible ;)
I always keep everything so I should have the epydoc stuff somewhere on my disk
Agree. I hope to have time for some widget docstrings before saturday and it would be nice to know what format to write them in.
It would also be nice to setup the test-suite so it executes code in docstrings too so any examples don't get outdated. However, I've tried making nosetests execute doctests and something funky happened (can't remember now and I'm away from dev. computer to try out)
I haven't try that either,
Anyway, no format is better than no docs so if nothing has been decided before the sprint it can always be formatted later... ;)
yea but that's double work.
Alberto
lets say we give it until wed if no better candidates appear go with epydoc?
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Docs" 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/turbogears-docs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
