Rename Docs.hasdoc to Docs.hasdocstring, to reduce ambiguity
#52724
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Merged
DilumAluthge
force-pushed
the
dpa/hasdocstring
branch
from
b8a4b27 to
b94ceab
Compare
Contributor
|
|
This was referenced Jan 4, 2024
Member
|
I'm not sure I agree. In the context of the |
Member
|
Triage agrees with @stevengj. Given that we use the term "doc" to refer to docstrings throughout the API, the right name for this is hasdoc. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Docs.hasdocwas introduced in #52139 (4209474), which hasn't made it into a release branch yet.The term "documented" can have multiple meanings:
Therefore, I think the name
Docs.hasdocis a little confusing/ambiguous. I think it would be better to rename the function toDocs.hasdocstring(orDocs.has_docstring), to make it more clear what this function is doing.Some more discussion in #52139 (comment) and #52139 (comment).