Message107790
Following a discussion on IRC:
<birkenfeld> I would even prefer having more of just `object` instead of :func:`object` or :class:`object`
I think it would be feasible to write a reST role that would use inspect or pydoc to find the type. It would not violate “In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess” if it only resolves `somebuiltin` and `some.fully.qualified.name`.
Cons: People unfamiliar with reST might confuse ``code`` with `name`; interpreting the role may prove non-trivial (either requiring importing Python module to introspect them, or keeping a mapping of names→types in some file).
Thoughts? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-06-14 15:09:13 | eric.araujo | set | recipients:
+ eric.araujo, docs@python |
2010-06-14 15:09:12 | eric.araujo | set | messageid: <1276528152.92.0.60611534239.issue8996@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-06-14 15:09:10 | eric.araujo | link | issue8996 messages |
2010-06-14 15:09:08 | eric.araujo | create | |
|