doesn't support constants

s/ignore explicitly/explicitly ignore/

I guess it could be supported. I don't know how they would be "documented" beyond their presence.

You can always document them using @ivar or :var: or similar.

On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 22:47 +0000, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
> I guess it could be supported. I don't know how they would be
> "documented" beyond their presence.
>
> You can always document them using @ivar or :var: or similar.
It's mainly their presence that I would like to record. An indication
that they are undocumented would also be useful.

Cheers,

Jelmer

On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 23:14:18 -0000, Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 22:47 +0000, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
> > I guess it could be supported. I don't know how they would be
> > "documented" beyond their presence.
> >
> > You can always document them using @ivar or :var: or similar.
> It's mainly their presence that I would like to record. An indication
> that they are undocumented would also be useful.

I do have a loose plan to change the model a bit that's vaguely related,
and you've provided me an excuse to brain dump :-)

Currently, Documentables have a document_in_parent_page attribute that
indicates whether the thing being documented should have its own page or
not. I'd like to expand this to be a three-valued thing: its own page,
in the parent page as functions/methods are now and additionally "in the
parents docstring", as :ivar:s and function arguments are now.
Currently zope Attributes are documented differently from :ivar:s and
that's a bit silly. Having function arguments be documentables or at
least some kind of more structured thing would also let us emit warnings
when you document an argument a function doesn't take, something that's
the topic of another bug report I think.

Brain dump over! I think documenting module variables would fit more
naturally into this view of the world than the one we have today.

Cheers,
mwh

Is this related to supporting module variables as link targets? It seems that presently even something documented with @var cannot be the target of L{}.

See also this Twisted bug: <http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/6196>.

Jean-Paul Calderone <email address hidden> writes:

> Is this related to supporting module variables as link targets? It
> seems that presently even something documented with @var cannot be the
> target of L{}.

It actually seems that things at module level documented with @var are
not present in the rendered page currently... which doesn't seem like it
was what I intended.

I've fixed that problem in r588. I don't know if it's worth starting to recognise constant assignments at module level and reporting them as undocumented... might be interesting. So I'll leave this bug open for now.