Yuv wrote:
On Nov 8, 1:33 am, Carl Banks wrote:
Is the docstring expected to be formatted according to some
convention?
We tried to comply to PEP 257 and we're open to suggestions on this.
I'd suggest at the very least supporting Sphinx docstrings that have the
parameters in them...
Chri
On Nov 7, 3:44 pm, Yuv wrote:
> On Nov 8, 1:33 am, Carl Banks wrote:
>
> > Is the docstring expected to be formatted according to some
> > convention?
[snippage]
> We tried to comply to PEP 257 and we're open to suggestions on this.
Ah, so we finally get to the answer: the convention is PEP 2
On Nov 8, 1:33 am, Carl Banks wrote:
> Is the docstring expected to be formatted according to some
> convention?
Yes it does, we parse the docstring as explained in argparse.py:
def _parse_docstring(function):
"""Parses a function's docstring for a description of the function
and for
help
On Nov 7, 2:45 pm, Yuv wrote:
> This was posted to the argparse mailing list by Steven Bethard and now
> we'd like some feedback from comp.lang.python.
>
> We now have a branch[5] of argparse that supports an ``argparse.run``
> function[6] which does
> some function introspection to build a comman
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Yuv wrote:
> This was posted to the argparse mailing list by Steven Bethard and now
> we'd like some feedback from comp.lang.python.
>
> We now have a branch[5] of argparse that supports an ``argparse.run``
> function[6] which does
> some function introspection to b
This was posted to the argparse mailing list by Steven Bethard and now
we'd like some feedback from comp.lang.python.
We now have a branch[5] of argparse that supports an ``argparse.run``
function[6] which does
some function introspection to build a command line parser from a
function definition:
