[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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]