William Stein wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:09:25 -0800, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> I am against enhancing the docstrings as you suggest. I think we should > >> write code to parse the original .pyx files, given the filename and line > >> number information. There is no extra overhead spacewise, and this fits > >> with how the rest of Python works better. Also, it is what I already > >> planned to do, but hadn't got to yet All I did was put something for > >> parsing out the source code -- try ?? on a sagex function. > > > > Okay, this sounds like a good task for me. > > I'd be very happy if you were to do this. Thanks! > > > I personally am not > > comfortable with ad-hoc parsing, so I avoid it like the plague, but > > I'll take a look at inspect and see what the 'officially sanctioned' > > technique is. > > Keep in mind that as languages go, Python is very easy to parse. > E.g., if f is a function definition: > > def f(x): > blah > > It's really easy to know where the definition ends.
Parsers have this funny way of bit-rotting over time... I'll write tests :) BTW, inspect.py does not parse source code. All the information is stored at compile time (as you would expect -- the syntax tree is still live) and inspect.py just provides a nicer interface to query the stored information. Nick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
