Am Donnerstag, 20. Oktober 2016 13:05:59 UTC+2 schrieb Johan S. R. Nielsen: > > > Yes, but there are no links. Or do you have them? > > True, they are not links. It would be nice if they were, though > personally I like that what is printed is the actual module name that I > should type in followed by ? to see its doc. That's probably how I would > do it even if it was a link, and IMHO beats replacing the module name by > only a description text which is a link. >
OK. I'd like to have both possibilities. > > (I admit, I made a mistake: the text is the same, contrary what I wrote. > > Although I'm not sure that showing just the docstring of the class is > best > > possible: I recently used automethod, and this documentation is not > > shown...) > > What do you mean? If you type e.g > > sage: codes? > > you'll get the doc for sage.coding.codes_catalog.py. The table there is > auto-generated. > I mean http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/coding_basics.html#private-functions As I said, I admit that this is not a real limitation, because in emacs we do get documentation for "private" functions. However, if I read the section I cited correctly, automethod should be used to include documentation that for some reason is better located in the docstring of a private function in another docstring. In https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21594 I am in a situation which matches this very precisely. Martin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
