[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 60] N-stage 64-bit multiplier pipeline needed (signed/unsigned)

[bugzilla-daemon at libre-riscv.org]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60

--- Comment #21 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #20)
> (In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #18)
> > the convention for docstrings is:
> I'm planning on changing the docs style to match numpy.
> 
> For most of the complaints, I had changed the style to match what pydocstyle
> expects:
> http://www.pydocstyle.org/en/stable/error_codes.html
> pydocstyle is based on pep257, which follows the same style of having no
> space after the opening quotes, having the multi-line docstring indented to
> the same depth as the first line, and having the closing quotes on the same
> line as the opening quotes for single-line docstrings.

https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/numpy/core/code_generators/ufunc_docstrings.py

The style is... tolerable. Barely. Placing the oneline summary *under* the
opening """ makes for readability by highlighting the function definition. It
is still not as good, I feel, as indenting by 8 spaces, which has the advantage
of leaving the function def free from visual interference, allowing the
reader's brain to utilise less energy to find where the actual function code
begins.

Note that by not having a space between the summary and the opening """ this is
a numpy style violation.

Must look up pydocstyle, I think there is an autostyle converter for it, just
like autopep8.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.