There's a new bug report on SF (#1243553) complaining (that's probably not
the right word) that the documentation for cgi.escape available from pydoc
isn't as detailed as that in the full documentation. Is there any desire to
make the runtime documentation available via pydoc or help() as detailed
On Sunday 24 July 2005 09:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> detailed as the full documentation? I'm inclined to think that while it
> might be a noble goal, it's probably not worth the effort for several
> reasons.
All your reasons not to include all the documentation in the docstrings are
good.
[Skip]
> There's a new bug report on SF (#1243553) complaining (that's probably not
> the right word) that the documentation for cgi.escape available from pydoc
> isn't as detailed as that in the full documentation. Is there any desire to
> make the runtime documentation available via pydoc or hel
On 7/24/05, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sure there is , but via a different route: tools to extract
> text from the full documentation, not to burden docstrings with an
> impossible task. Channeling Guido, docstrings are best when they have
> a "quick reference card" feel, more me
[Tim Lesher]
> While I agree that docstrings shouldn't be a deep copy of _Python in a
> Nutshell_, there are definitely some areas of the standard library
> that could use some help. threading comes to mind immediately.
Sure! The way to cure that one is to write better docstrings for
threading -
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>>I'd guess this belongs in 2.5, with a possible retrofit for 2.4.
>
>
> +1 on backporting, but that is up to Anthony.
Correct me if I'm wrong - but there isn't much "porting" to this.
AFAICT, this is only relevant for the Windows build (i.e. which
version is used in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There's a new bug report on SF (#1243553) complaining (that's probably not
> the right word) that the documentation for cgi.escape available from pydoc
> isn't as detailed as that in the full documentation. Is there any desire to
> make the runtime documentation availabl
On 7/24/05, Fred L. Drake, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 24 July 2005 09:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > detailed as the full documentation? I'm inclined to think that while it
> > might be a noble goal, it's probably not worth the effort for several
> > reasons.
>
> All your rea
Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> 6. Most Python processes don't need the docs anyway. I suspect the
>docstrings are used primarily in the interactive interpreter and other
>development tools.
Maybe docstrings should be kept in a separate part of the
.pyc file, and not loaded into
