Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Bright idea
> --
> Let's go one step further and do this just about everywhere and instead of
> putting it in the docs, attach an exec-able string as an
> attribute to our C functions. Further, those pure python examples should
> include doctests so that the user can see a typical invocation and calling
> pattern.
>
> Say we decide to call the attribute something like ".python", then you
> could write something like:
>
> >>> print(all.python)
>def all(iterable):
> '''Return True if all elements of the iterable are true.
>
[...]
+1 from the peanut gallery, with a note: since ipython is a common way for
many to use/learn python interactively, if this is adopted, we'd
*immediately* add to ipython's '?' introspection machinery the ability to
automatically find this information. This way, when people type "all?"
or "all??" we'd fetch the doc and source code.
A minor question inspired by this: would it make sense to split the
docstring part from the code of this .python object? I say this because in
principle, the docstring should be the same of the 'parent', and it would
simplify our implementation to eliminate the duplicate printout.
The .python object could always be a special string-like object made from
combining the pure python code with a single docstring, common to the C and
the Python versions, that would remain exec-able.
In any case, details aside I think this is great and if it comes to pass,
we'll be happy to make it readily accessible to interactive users via
ipython.
Cheers,
f
___
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
