On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:51:43PM +0200, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:06:32AM -0700, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote: > > I think "_included_private_doc_" attribute would be great. > > Of course, as Florent and David I'd much prefer the approach of > including a private method if and only if it's referred to somewhere, > but unless we have a volunteer to implement that, the attribute is fine. > > I am not very happy with the name of that attribute but don't have a > really better suggestion so ... Maybe "_documented_private_methods_"? > > A potential issue/feature about that attribute: it will be inherited.
I currently look it into the Class.__dict__. So no inheritance. > While we are speaking about documentation for ``._*`` methods it, a > related question. I consider Python's (``.__*__``) and Sage's > (``._*_``) special methods as public, and would be very much in favor > of including them by default in the Sphinx documentation. > > What do you think? When I was speaking of private methods, I was refering to those case of methods as well. The question you are rising here is if SAGE_DOC_UNDERSCORE should be True by defaults. This is a different question. I though it was settled. Cheers, Florent -- 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
