On Sep 16, 12:10 am, Tom Boothby <tomas.boot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I find the generic version of the function definitions less than > > satisfactory. I'd guess it would be had to make Sphinx pickup the > > more detailed info in these situations? I'd also guess the decorators > > could maybe manipulate the docstring and inject some information based > > on the arguments of the decorator? Either way, could the effect of > > these decorators on the documentation be improved? > > Yes, that is possible -- decorators already have to "steal" > documentation from whatever they decorate. I think that we should > require decorators to document their existence and effect.
I don't know if this is the same issue, but I think I've also seen the @CachedFunction decorator hide documentation: if you have @CachedFunction def bozo(...): Then bozo doesn't appear in the reference manual. I've considered doing def bozo_(...): bozo = CachedFunction(bozo_) Then bozo_ appears in the ref manual and bozo is what you actually call. But it's annoying. -- John -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
