From: Benjamin R. <ben...@ou...> - 2011-05-16 22:28:06
|
On Monday, May 16, 2011, John Hunter <jd...@gm...> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote: > > > > I had no idea this would open such a big can of worms! The strategy > question here is, what do we want to include in the html API docs? > > It looks like the process of setting up the sphinx API docs was never > completed; the present set of modules that are included ranges from the > fundamental (e.g. figure.py) to the peripheral (e.g. afm.py), but I > doubt that text.py, for example, was deliberately excluded. > > I don't see any major disadvantage to including all modules. It might > make sense to present them in categories, though, instead of dumping > them all into a single alphabetical list. > > Perhaps Mike and John will have sage advice. > > > Not all of the doc strings have been converted to rest. Back when I was actively working on the docs, I would add a module to the API table of contents when I had at least done a first pass at converting the docs to rest. This isn't a requirement, but it helps explain why some modules and not others are in the list. > Well, I will take a look at what is currently converted and see if any of those can get added. Ben Root |