info at linos.es
Tue Oct 4 10:55:37 MDT 2011
El 04/10/11 18:32, Michael Foord escribió:
> On 04/10/2011 03:55, Marc A. Murison wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:00, <wingide-users-request at wingware.com
>> <mailto:wingide-users-request at wingware.com>> wrote:
>> We plan on improving both in the future and perhaps will support things
>> like epydoc. . .
>> +1 +1 +1 +1 !!!
> Although epydoc itself is dead, right? (No longer maintained and pretty serious
> bugs in the output from the last released version.)
> Does sphinx, along with its autodoc extensions, have any convention around
> parameter types and return values?
> I'm also a big anti-fan of dead asserts and isinstances just for the sake of
> Wing. What would be really awesome is if Wing could pickup type information
> (annotating and updating the pi files perhaps) from a test run. Allowing for
> polymorphic calls naturally...
> The type inferencing (by static analysis) in the Visual Studio tools for python
> is also pretty awesome (for example if you have a list of tuples with a regular
> type structure it flows the type analysis through - so if you unpack the members
> of the list in a loop it knows the type of the unpacked values).
> The features provided by Wing code analysis (goto definition and autocomplete
> for example) are big reasons for my love of Wing - so seeing competition in this
> space is definitely good. :-)
>> Marc A. Murison
>> Wing IDE users list
For me it is more a way to annotate types inline that for write documentation
for the project, epydoc seems to do both with a nice syntax but the project
seems to be dead indeed, i don't know sphinx but if it lets you annotate types
inline (not only function parameters but variables in code too) i am fine with
it, what i would like not have to do it is to maintain separate files with the
types in it.
More information about the wingide-users