[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Use of "optional argument" in docstring
From: |
Bill Wohler |
Subject: |
Re: Use of "optional argument" in docstring |
Date: |
Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:25:41 -0800 |
Nick Roberts <address@hidden> wrote:
> In all the examples that I looked at optional arguments are explicitly
> described as such.
Old, or new functions? I see it predominantly in older functions and
less so in new functions.
> > I also think the documentation often reads better if the number and the
> > word "argument" is dropped. For example, in the example above, "If BASE
> > is given..."
>
> Maybe but it would be a lot of work to change now.
Yes, of course, but we're not talking about that. I'm asking what one
should use for new functions (or functions one is editing).
I suspect that the convention of using "optional second argument" comes
from a day before Emacs printed the function spec in the *Help* buffer.
If that had been the case, that docstring convention would have been
imperative. It seems possible that the reason to use "optional second
argument" no longer exists.
--
Bill Wohler <address@hidden> http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.