iSharkFly-Open
/
python-peps
mirror of https://github.com/python/peps.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
python-peps/pep-0287.txt

814 lines
33 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

PEP: 287
Title: reStructuredText Docstring Format
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: goodger@users.sourceforge.net (David Goodger)
Discussions-To: doc-sig@python.org
Status: Draft
Type: Informational
Created: 25-Mar-2002
Post-History: 02-Apr-2002
Replaces: 216
Abstract
When plaintext hasn't been expressive enough for inline
documentation, Python programmers have sought out a format for
docstrings. This PEP proposes that the reStructuredText markup
[1]_ be adopted as a standard markup format for structured
plaintext documentation in Python docstrings, and for PEPs and
ancillary documents as well. reStructuredText is a rich and
extensible yet easy-to-read, what-you-see-is-what-you-get
plaintext markup syntax.
Only the low-level syntax of docstrings is addressed here. This
PEP is not concerned with docstring semantics or processing at all
(see PEP 256 for a "Roadmap to the Doctring PEPs"). Nor is it an
attempt to deprecate pure plaintext docstrings, which are always
going to be legitimate. The reStructuredText markup is an
alternative for those who want more expressive docstrings.
Benefits
Programmers are by nature a lazy breed. We reuse code with
functions, classes, modules, and subsystems. Through its
docstring syntax, Python allows us to document our code from
within. The "holy grail" of the Python Documentation Special
Interest Group (Doc-SIG) [2]_ has been a markup syntax and toolset
to allow auto-documentation, where the docstrings of Python
systems can be extracted in context and processed into useful,
high-quality documentation for multiple purposes.
Document markup languages have three groups of customers: the
authors who write the documents, the software systems that process
the data, and the readers, who are the final consumers and the
most important group. Most markups are designed for the authors
and software systems; readers are only meant to see the processed
form, either on paper or via browser software. ReStructuredText
is different: it is intended to be easily readable in source form,
without prior knowledge of the markup. ReStructuredText is
entirely readable in plaintext format, and many of the markup
forms match common usage (e.g., ``*emphasis*``), so it reads quite
naturally. Yet it is rich enough to produce complex documents,
and extensible so that there are few limits. Of course, to write
reStructuredText documents some prior knowledge is required.
The reStructuredText parser is available now. The Docutils
project is at the point where standalone reStructuredText
documents can be converted to HTML; other output format writers
will become available over time. Work is progressing on a Python
source "Reader" which will implement auto-documentation from
docstrings. Authors of existing auto-documentation tools are
encouraged to integrate the reStructuredText parser into their
projects, or better yet, to join forces to produce a world-class
toolset for the Python standard library.
Tools will become available in the near future, which will allow
programmers to generate HTML for online help, XML for multiple
purposes, and eventually PDF, DocBook, and LaTeX for printed
documentation, essentially "for free" from the existing
docstrings. The adoption of a standard will, at the very least,
benefit docstring processing tools by preventing further
"reinventing the wheel".
Eventually PyDoc, the one existing standard auto-documentation
tool, could have reStructuredText support added. In the interim
it will have no problem with reStructuredText markup, since it
treats all docstrings as preformatted plaintext.
Goals
These are the generally accepted goals for a docstring format, as
discussed in the Doc-SIG:
1. It must be readable in source form by the casual observer.
2. It must be easy to type with any standard text editor.
3. It must not need to contain information which can be deduced
from parsing the module.
4. It must contain sufficient information (structure) so it can be
converted to any reasonable markup format.
5. It must be possible to write a module's entire documentation in
docstrings, without feeling hampered by the markup language.
reStructuredText meets and exceeds all of these goals, and sets
its own goals as well, even more stringent. See
"Docstring-Significant Features" below.
The goals of this PEP are as follows:
1. To establish reStructuredText as a standard structured
plaintext format for docstrings (inline documentation of Python
modules and packages), PEPs, README-type files and other
standalone documents. "Accepted" status will be sought through
Python community consensus and eventual BDFL pronouncement.
Please note that reStructuredText is being proposed as *a*
standard, not *the only* standard. Its use will be entirely
optional. Those who don't want to use it need not.
2. To solicit and address any related concerns raised by the
Python community.
3. To encourage community support. As long as multiple competing
markups are out there, the development community remains
fractured. Once a standard exists, people will start to use
it, and momentum will inevitably gather.
4. To consolidate efforts from related auto-documentation
projects. It is hoped that interested developers will join
forces and work on a joint/merged/common implementation.
Once reStructuredText is a Python standard, effort can be focused
on tools instead of arguing for a standard. Python needs a
standard set of documentation tools.
With regard to PEPs, one or both of the following strategies may
be applied:
a) Keep the existing PEP section structure constructs (one-line
section headers, indented body text). Subsections can either
be forbidden, or supported with reStructuredText-style
underlined headers in the indented body text.
b) Replace the PEP section structure constructs with the
reStructuredText syntax. Section headers will require
underlines, subsections will be supported out of the box,
and body text need not be indented (except for block
quotes).
Support for RFC 2822 headers has been added to the
reStructuredText parser for PEPs (unambiguous given a specific
context: the first contiguous block of the document). It may be
desired to concretely specify what over/underline styles are
allowed for PEP section headers, for uniformity.
Rationale
The lack of a standard syntax for docstrings has hampered the
development of standard tools for extracting and converting
docstrings into documentation in standard formats (e.g., HTML,
DocBook, TeX). There have been a number of proposed markup
formats and variations, and many tools tied to these proposals,
but without a standard docstring format they have failed to gain a
strong following and/or floundered half-finished.
Throughout the existence of the Doc-SIG, consensus on a single
standard docstring format has never been reached. A lightweight,
implicit markup has been sought, for the following reasons (among
others):
1. Docstrings written within Python code are available from within
the interactive interpreter, and can be "print"ed. Thus the
use of plaintext for easy readability.
2. Programmers want to add structure to their docstrings, without
sacrificing raw docstring readability. Unadorned plaintext
cannot be transformed ("up-translated") into useful structured
formats.
3. Explicit markup (like XML or TeX) is widely considered
unreadable by the uninitiated.
4. Implicit markup is aesthetically compatible with the clean and
minimalist Python syntax.
Many alternative markups for docstrings have been proposed on the
Doc-SIG over the years; a representative sample is listed below.
Each is briefly analyzed in terms of the goals stated above.
Please note that this is *not* intended to be an exclusive list of
all existing markup systems; there are many other markups
(Texinfo, Doxygen, TIM, YODL, AFT, ...) which are not mentioned.
- XML [3]_, SGML [4]_, DocBook [5]_, HTML [6]_, XHTML [7]_
XML and SGML are explicit, well-formed meta-languages suitable
for all kinds of documentation. XML is a variant of SGML. They
are best used behind the scenes, because to untrained eyes they
are verbose, difficult to type, and too cluttered to read
comfortably as source. DocBook, HTML, and XHTML are all
applications of SGML and/or XML, and all share the same basic
syntax and the same shortcomings.
- TeX [8]_
TeX is similar to XML/SGML in that it's explicit, but not very
easy to write, and not easy for the uninitiated to read.
- Perl POD [9]_
Most Perl modules are documented in a format called POD (Plain
Old Documentation). This is an easy-to-type, very low level
format with strong integration with the Perl parser. Many tools
exist to turn POD documentation into other formats: info, HTML
and man pages, among others. However, the POD syntax takes
after Perl itself in terms of readability.
- JavaDoc [10]_
Special comments before Java classes and functions serve to
document the code. A program to extract these, and turn them
into HTML documentation is called javadoc, and is part of the
standard Java distribution. However, JavaDoc has a very
intimate relationship with HTML, using HTML tags for most
markup. Thus it shares the readability problems of HTML.
- Setext [11]_, StructuredText [12]_
Early on, variants of Setext (Structure Enhanced Text),
including Zope Corp's StructuredText, were proposed for Python
docstring formatting. Hereafter these variants will
collectively be called "STexts". STexts have the advantage of
being easy to read without special knowledge, and relatively
easy to write.
Although used by some (including in most existing Python
auto-documentation tools), until now STexts have failed to
become standard because:
- STexts have been incomplete. Lacking "essential" constructs
that people want to use in their docstrings, STexts are
rendered less than ideal. Note that these "essential"
constructs are not universal; everyone has their own
requirements.
- STexts have been sometimes surprising. Bits of text are
unexpectedly interpreted as being marked up, leading to user
frustration.
- SText implementations have been buggy.
- Most STexts have have had no formal specification except for
the implementation itself. A buggy implementation meant a
buggy spec, and vice-versa.
- There has been no mechanism to get around the SText markup
rules when a markup character is used in a non-markup context.
In other words, no way to escape markup.
Proponents of implicit STexts have vigorously opposed proposals
for explicit markup (XML, HTML, TeX, POD, etc.), and the debates
have continued off and on since 1996 or earlier.
reStructuredText is a complete revision and reinterpretation of
the SText idea, addressing all of the problems listed above.
Specification
The specification and user documentaton for reStructuredText is
quite extensive. Rather than repeating or summarizing it all
here, links to the originals are provided.
Please first take a look at "A ReStructuredText Primer" [13]_, a
short and gentle introduction. The "Quick reStructuredText" user
reference [14]_ quickly summarizes all of the markup constructs.
For complete and extensive details, please refer to the following
documents:
- An Introduction to reStructuredText [15]_
- reStructuredText Markup Specification [16]_
- reStructuredText Directives [17]_
In addition, "Problems With StructuredText" [18]_ explains many
markup decisions made with regards to StructuredText, and "A
Record of reStructuredText Syntax Alternatives" [19]_ records
markup decisions made independently.
Docstring-Significant Features
- A markup escaping mechanism.
Backslashes (``\``) are used to escape markup characters when
needed for non-markup purposes. However, the inline markup
recognition rules have been constructed in order to minimize the
need for backslash-escapes. For example, although asterisks are
used for *emphasis*, in non-markup contexts such as "*" or "(*)"
or "x * y", the asterisks are not interpreted as markup and are
left unchanged. For many non-markup uses of backslashes (e.g.,
describing regular expressions), inline literals or literal
blocks are applicable; see the next item.
- Markup to include Python source code and Python interactive
sessions: inline literals, literal blocks, and doctest blocks.
Inline literals use ``double-backquotes`` to indicate program
I/O or code snippets. No markup interpretation (including
backslash-escape [``\``] interpretation) is done within inline
literals.
Literal blocks (block-level literal text, such as code excerpts
or ASCII graphics) are indented, and indicated with a
double-colon ("::") at the end of the preceding paragraph (right
here -->)::
if literal_block:
text = 'is left as-is'
spaces_and_linebreaks = 'are preserved'
markup_processing = None
Doctest blocks begin with ">>> " and end with a blank line.
Neither indentation nor literal block double-colons are
required. For example::
Here's a doctest block:
>>> print 'Python-specific usage examples; begun with ">>>"'
Python-specific usage examples; begun with ">>>"
>>> print '(cut and pasted from interactive sessions)'
(cut and pasted from interactive sessions)
- Markup that isolates a Python identifier: interpreted text.
Text enclosed in single backquotes is recognized as "interpreted
text", whose interpretation is application-dependent. In the
context of a Python docstring, the default interpretation of
interpreted text is as Python identifiers. The text will be
marked up with a hyperlink connected to the documentation for
the identifier given. Lookup rules are the same as in Python
itself: LGB namespace lookups (local, global, builtin). The
"role" of the interpreted text (identifying a class, module,
function, etc.) is determined implicitly from the namespace
lookup. For example::
class Keeper(Storer):
"""
Keep data fresher longer.
Extend `Storer`. Class attribute `instances` keeps track
of the number of `Keeper` objects instantiated.
"""
instances = 0
"""How many `Keeper` objects are there?"""
def __init__(self):
"""
Extend `Storer.__init__()` to keep track of
instances. Keep count in `self.instances` and data
in `self.data`.
"""
Storer.__init__(self)
self.instances += 1
self.data = []
"""Store data in a list, most recent last."""
def storedata(self, data):
"""
Extend `Storer.storedata()`; append new `data` to a
list (in `self.data`).
"""
self.data = data
Each piece of interpreted text is looked up according to the
local namespace of the block containing its docstring.
- Markup that isolates a Python identifier and specifies its type:
interpreted text with roles.
Although the Python source context reader is designed not to
require explicit roles, they may be used. To classify
identifiers explicitly, the role is given along with the
identifier in either prefix or suffix form::
Use :method:`Keeper.storedata` to store the object's data in
`Keeper.data`:instance_attribute:.
The syntax chosen for roles is verbose, but necessarily so (if
anyone has a better alternative, please post it to the Doc-SIG).
The intention of the markup is that there should be little need
to use explicit roles; their use is to be kept to an absolute
minimum.
- Markup for "tagged lists" or "label lists": field lists.
Field lists represent a mapping from field name to field body.
These are mostly used for extension syntax, such as
"bibliographic field lists" (representing document metadata such
as author, date, and version) and extension attributes for
directives (see below). They may be used to implement
methodologies (docstring semantics), such as identifying
parameters, exceptions raised, etc.; such usage is beyond the
scope of this PEP.
A modified RFC 2822 syntax is used, with a colon *before* as
well as *after* the field name. Field bodies are more versatile
as well; they may contain multiple field bodies (even nested
field lists). For example::
:Date: 2002-03-22
:Version: 1
:Authors:
- Me
- Myself
- I
Standard RFC 2822 header syntax cannot be used for this
construct because it is ambiguous. A word followed by a colon
at the beginning of a line is common in written text.
- Markup extensibility: directives and substitutions.
Directives are used as an extension mechanism for
reStructuredText, a way of adding support for new block-level
constructs without adding new syntax. Directives for images,
admonitions (note, caution, etc.), and tables of contents
generation (among others) have been implemented. For example,
here's how to place an image::
.. image:: mylogo.png
Substitution definitions allow the power and flexibility of
block-level directives to be shared by inline text. For
example::
The |biohazard| symbol must be used on containers used to
dispose of medical waste.
.. |biohazard| image:: biohazard.png
- Section structure markup.
Section headers in reStructuredText use adornment via underlines
(and possibly overlines) rather than indentation. For example::
This is a Section Title
=======================
This is a Subsection Title
--------------------------
This paragraph is in the subsection.
This is Another Section Title
=============================
This paragraph is in the second section.
Questions & Answers
1. Is reStructuredText rich enough?
Yes, it is for most people. If it lacks some construct that is
required for a specific application, it can be added via the
directive mechanism. If a useful and common construct has been
overlooked and a suitably readable syntax can be found, it can
be added to the specification and parser.
2. Is reStructuredText *too* rich?
For specific applications or individuals, perhaps. In general,
no.
Since the very beginning, whenever a docstring markup syntax
has been proposed on the Doc-SIG, someone has complained about
the lack of support for some construct or other. The reply was
often something like, "These are docstrings we're talking
about, and docstrings shouldn't have complex markup." The
problem is that a construct that seems superfluous to one
person may be absolutely essential to another.
reStructuredText takes the opposite approach: it provides a
rich set of implicit markup constructs (plus a generic
extension mechanism for explicit markup), allowing for all
kinds of documents. If the set of constructs is too rich for a
particular application, the unused constructs can either be
removed from the parser (via application-specific overrides) or
simply omitted by convention.
3. Why not use indentation for section structure, like
StructuredText does? Isn't it more "Pythonic"?
Guido van Rossum wrote the following in a 2001-06-13 Doc-SIG
post:
I still think that using indentation to indicate sectioning
is wrong. If you look at how real books and other print
publications are laid out, you'll notice that indentation
is used frequently, but mostly at the intra-section level.
Indentation can be used to offset lists, tables,
quotations, examples, and the like. (The argument that
docstrings are different because they are input for a text
formatter is wrong: the whole point is that they are also
readable without processing.)
I reject the argument that using indentation is Pythonic:
text is not code, and different traditions and conventions
hold. People have been presenting text for readability for
over 30 centuries. Let's not innovate needlessly.
See "Section Structure via Indentation" in "Problems With
StructuredText" [18 ]_ for further elaboration.
4. Why use reStructuredText for PEPs? What's wrong with the
existing standard?
The existing standard for PEPs is very limited in terms of
general expressibility, and referencing is especially lacking
for such a reference-rich document type. PEPs are currently
converted into HTML, but the results (mostly monospaced text)
are less than attractive, and most of the value-added potential
of HTML (especially inline hyperlinks) is untapped.
Making reStructuredText a standard markup for PEPs will enable
much richer expression, including support for section
structure, inline markup, graphics, and tables. In several
PEPs there are ASCII graphics diagrams, which are all that
plaintext documents can support. Since PEPs are made available
in HTML form, the ability to include proper diagrams would be
immediately useful.
Current PEP practices allow for reference markers in the form
"[1]" in the text, and the footnotes/references themselves are
listed in a section toward the end of the document. There is
currently no hyperlinking between the reference marker and the
footnote/reference itself (it would be possible to add this to
pep2html.py, but the "markup" as it stands is ambiguous and
mistakes would be inevitable). A PEP with many references
(such as this one ;-) requires a lot of flipping back and
forth. When revising a PEP, often new references are added or
unused references deleted. It is painful to renumber the
references, since it has to be done in two places and can have
a cascading effect (insert a single new reference 1, and every
other reference has to be renumbered; always adding new
references to the end is suboptimal). It is easy for
references to go out of sync.
PEPs use references for two purposes: simple URL references and
footnotes. reStructuredText differentiates between the two. A
PEP might contain references like this::
Abstract
This PEP proposes adding frungible doodads [1] to the
core. It extends PEP 9876 [2] via the BCA [3]
mechanism.
References and Footnotes
[1] http://www.example.org/
[2] PEP 9876, Let's Hope We Never Get Here
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-9876.html
[3] "Bogus Complexity Addition"
Reference 1 is a simple URL reference. Reference 2 is a
footnote containing text and a URL. Reference 3 is a footnote
containing text only. Rewritten using reStructuredText, this
PEP could look like this::
Abstract
========
This PEP proposes adding `frungible doodads`_ to the core.
It extends PEP 9876 [#pep9876]_ via the BCA [#]_ mechanism.
...
References & Footnotes
======================
.. _frungible doodads: http://www.example.org/
.. [#pep9876] PEP 9876, Let's Hope We Never Get Here
.. [#] "Bogus Complexity Addition"
URLs and footnotes can be defined close to their references if
desired, making them easier to read in the source text, and
making the PEPs easier to revise. The "References and
Footnotes" section can be auto-generated with a document tree
transform. Footnotes from throughout the PEP would be gathered
and displayed under a standard header. If URL references
should likewise be written out explicitly (in citation form),
another tree transform could be used.
URL references can be named ("frungible doodads"), and can be
referenced from multiple places in the document without
additional definitions. When converted to HTML, references
will be replaced with inline hyperlinks (HTML <a> tags). The
two footnotes are automatically numbered, so they will always
stay in sync. The first footnote also contains an internal
reference name, "pep9876", so it's easier to see the connection
between reference and footnote in the source text. Named
footnotes can be referenced multiple times, maintaining
consistent numbering.
The "#pep9876" footnote could also be written in the form of a
citation::
It extends PEP 9876 [PEP9876]_ ...
.. [PEP9876] PEP 9876, Let's Hope We Never Get Here
Footnotes are numbered, whereas citations use text for their
references.
5. Wouldn't it be better to keep the docstring and PEP proposals
separate?
The PEP markup proposal may be removed if it is deemed that
there is no need for PEP markup, or it could be made into a
separate PEP. If accepted, PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines
[20]_, and PEP 9, Sample PEP Template [21]_ will be updated.
It seems natural to adopt a single consistent markup standard
for all uses of structured plaintext in Python, and to propose
it all in one place.
6. The existing pep2html.py script converts the existing PEP
format to HTML. How will the new-format PEPs be converted to
HTML?
One of the deliverables of the Docutils project [22]_ will be a
new version of pep2html.py with integrated reStructuredText
parsing. The Docutils project will support PEPs with a "PEP
Reader" component, including all functionality currently in
pep2html.py (auto-recognition of PEP & RFC references).
7. Who's going to convert the existing PEPs to reStructuredText?
PEP authors or volunteers may convert existing PEPs if they
like, but there is no requirement to do so. The
reStructuredText-based PEPs will coexist with the old PEP
standard. The pep2html.py mentioned in answer 6 will process
both old and new standards.
8. Why use reStructuredText for README and other ancillary files?
The reasoning given for PEPs in answer 4 above also applies to
README and other ancillary files. By adopting a standard
markup, these files can be converted to attractive
cross-referenced HTML and put up on python.org. Developers of
Python projects can also take advantage of this facility for
their own documentation.
9. Won't the superficial similarity to existing markup conventions
cause problems, and result in people writing invalid markup
(and not noticing, because the plaintext looks natural)? How
forgiving is reStructuredText of "not quite right" markup?
There will be some mis-steps, as there would be when moving
from one programming language to another. As with any
language, proficiency grows with experience. Luckily,
reStructuredText is a very little language indeed.
As with any syntax, there is the possibility of syntax errors.
It is expected that a user will run the processing system over
their input and check the output for correctness.
In a strict sense, the reStructuredText parser is very
unforgiving (as it should be; "In the face of ambiguity, refuse
the temptation to guess" [23]_ applies to parsing markup as
well as computer languages). Here's design goal 3 from "An
Introduction to reStructuredText" [15 ]_:
Unambiguous. The rules for markup must not be open for
interpretation. For any given input, there should be one
and only one possible output (including error output).
While unforgiving, at the same time the parser does try to be
helpful by producing useful diagnostic output ("system
messages"). The parser reports problems, indicating their
level of severity (from least to most: debug, info, warning,
error, severe). The user or the client software can decide on
reporting thresholds; they can ignore low-level problems or
cause high-level problems to bring processing to an immediate
halt. Problems are reported during the parse as well as
included in the output, often with two-way links between the
source of the problem and the system message explaining it.
10. Will the docstrings in the Python standard library modules be
converted to reStructuredText?
No. Python's library reference documentation is maintained
separately from the source. Docstrings in the Python standard
library should not try to duplicate the library reference
documentation. The current policy for docstrings in the
Python standard library is that they should be no more than
concise hints, simple and markup-free (although many *do*
contain ad-hoc implicit markup).
11. I want to write all my strings in Unicode. Will anything
break?
The parser fully supports Unicode. Docutils supports
arbitrary input encodings.
12. Why does the community need a new structured text design?
The existing structured text designs are deficient, for the
reasons given in "Rationale" above. reStructuredText aims to
be a complete markup syntax, within the limitations of the
"readable plaintext" medium.
13. What is wrong with existing documentation methodologies?
What existing methodologies? For Python docstrings, there is
**no** official standard markup format, let alone a
documentation methodology, akin to JavaDoc. The question of
methodology is at a much higher level than syntax (which this
PEP addresses). It is potentially much more controversial and
difficult to resolve, and is intentionally left out of this
discussion.
References & Footnotes
[1] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/spec/rst.html
[2] http://www.python.org/sigs/doc-sig/
[3] http://www.w3.org/XML/
[4] http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/general.html
[5] http://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/docbook.html
[6] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/
[7] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/#xhtml1
[8] http://www.tug.org/interest.html
[9] http://www.perldoc.com/perl5.6/pod/perlpod.html
[10] http://java.sun.com/j2se/javadoc/
[11] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/mirror/setext.html
[12] http://dev.zope.org/Members/jim/StructuredTextWiki/FrontPage
[13] A ReStructuredText Primer
http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/rst/quickstart.html
[14] Quick reStructuredText
http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/rst/quickref.html
[15] An Introduction to reStructuredText
http://docutils.sourceforge.net/spec/rst/introduction.html
[16] reStructuredText Markup Specification
http://docutils.sourceforge.net/spec/rst/reStructuredText.html
[17] reStructuredText Directives
http://docutils.sourceforge.net/spec/rst/directives.html
[18] Problems with StructuredText
http://docutils.sourceforge.net/spec/rst/problems.html
[19] A Record of reStructuredText Syntax Alternatives
http://docutils.sourceforge.net/spec/rst/alternatives.html
[20] PEP 1, PEP Guidelines, Warsaw, Hylton
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html
[21] PEP 9, Sample PEP Template, Warsaw
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0009.html
[22] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
[23] From "The Zen of Python (by Tim Peters)"
(http://www.python.org/doc/Humor.html#zen or just
"``import this``" in Python)
[24] PEP 216, Docstring Format, Zadka
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0216.html
Copyright
This document has been placed in the public domain.
Acknowledgements
Some text is borrowed from PEP 216, Docstring Format [24]_, by
Moshe Zadka.
Special thanks to all members past & present of the Python
Doc-SIG.
Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
sentence-end-double-space: t
fill-column: 70
End:
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink