Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Deciding on documentation style (docstrings) #2

Open
BigRoy opened this issue May 6, 2015 · 4 comments
Open

Deciding on documentation style (docstrings) #2

BigRoy opened this issue May 6, 2015 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@BigRoy
Copy link
Member

BigRoy commented May 6, 2015

Currently I'm using a heavily reStructuredText driven docstring style but looking over how it looks in the code I'm thinking about swapping over to the Google Style Docstrings.

Google Style Docstrings

reStructuredText Docstrings

The nice thing of reStructuredText over Google Style is that it's easily supported for autodoc in sphinx. Plus it's supported directly in IDEs like PyCharm while Google Style is not supported in PyCharm.

@BigRoy BigRoy added the question label May 6, 2015
@mottosso
Copy link

+1 for Google Style

It's supported by Sphinx, I'm using it for Pyblish.

@ftouvet
Copy link

ftouvet commented Oct 15, 2015

is it me or Google Style is "just" an indented reStructuredText?

@BigRoy
Copy link
Member Author

BigRoy commented Dec 23, 2015

is it me or Google Style is "just" an indented reStructuredText?

@ftouvet Haha, kind off I guess. Less dots and symbols here and there. Supposedly more readable within the code.

Anyway, I'll move towards Google style down the line since there doesn't seem to be any current opposition...

BigRoy added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 23, 2015
@BigRoy
Copy link
Member Author

BigRoy commented Sep 5, 2016

I'll be moving forward to Googley style docstrings over time. As I cleanup some code I'll refactor docstrings accordingly.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants