Re: docstrings in the reference manual

[Panicz Maciej Godek <godek.maciek@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1077 bytes --]

2014-12-16 12:42 GMT+01:00 John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>:
>
> Why murder the English language more than necessary?  "Docstrings" is a
> cliche
> which has come from other projects.  Peope for whom English is not their
> first
> language can be confused by such aliterations.  They won't find the word
> in any
> dictionary.
>
>
Actually, there's a wikipedia entry regarding that notion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docstring
It appears that the word 'docstring' is already used in the technical
jargon and Jamil's case proves that the manual could do better in
faciliating the search.

Write the term "documentation string" out in full, or simply "documentation"
> where the context is clear.


If you take a look at the index of the manual, you'll find entries like:
"alist", "async", "errno", "smob", "vcell" and so on. I don't think that
adding a "docstring" entry would do any harm in this particular context (on
the other hand, the "documentation string" entry is lacking as well, so I
agree that it is more important to add this one in the first place)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1907 bytes --]