➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author terry.reedy
Recipients Dmitry.Jemerov, JingCheng.LIU, docs@python, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, orsenthil, pitrou, r.david.murray, stutzbach, terry.reedy
Date 2010-09-03.21:47:02
SpamBayes Score 2.1561825e-10
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1283550424.55.0.449047417082.issue9730@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content 
As an experiment, I ran doctest on 17.2 json saved as .txt, See #9767
4 failures, 2 obvious doc faults, 2 unclear to me.
Their were 2 similar doc faults in non-interactive code examples, so doctest is not enough to catch all bad code.

We clearly need to do this for the entire doc, preferably before 3.2 is released. A master issue is the wrong format, at least by itself. What I think is needed is a repository doc like Misc/maintainers.rst, call it Misc/doctests or Misc/docdoctests. It should have a line for each doc section with current status (blank for unchecked, n/a for no interactive example, issue number for fixes in progress). A master issue could then be a place where non-committers can report changes that committers could apply. What do you others think?
History
Date User Action Args
2010-09-03 21:47:05terry.reedysetrecipients: + terry.reedy, georg.brandl, orsenthil, pitrou, stutzbach, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, Dmitry.Jemerov, docs@python, JingCheng.LIU
2010-09-03 21:47:04terry.reedysetmessageid: <1283550424.55.0.449047417082.issue9730@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-09-03 21:47:02terry.reedylinkissue9730 messages
2010-09-03 21:47:02terry.reedycreate