Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow for slots to be documented in the 3.8 mentioned dictionary style #6325

Closed
13steinj opened this issue Apr 26, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed
Labels
extensions:autodoc type:enhancement enhance or introduce a new feature
Milestone

Comments

@13steinj
Copy link

13steinj commented Apr 26, 2019

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
To an extent. Sphinx's support of slots and conflicts between slots and the ideas of member types vs class variables has been a long standing issue (see context).

Describe the solution you'd like
If slots is a dictionary, the values of the dictionary can be used as docstrings for that slot.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Current documentation methods for slots, but it is lacking and has issues with conflicts and more.

Additional context

@tk0miya tk0miya added this to the 2.1.0 milestone May 12, 2019
@tk0miya tk0miya added the type:enhancement enhance or introduce a new feature label May 21, 2019
tk0miya added a commit to tk0miya/sphinx that referenced this issue May 21, 2019
tk0miya added a commit to tk0miya/sphinx that referenced this issue May 22, 2019
tk0miya added a commit that referenced this issue May 25, 2019
Close #6325: autodoc: Support attributes in __slots__
@tk0miya
Copy link
Member

tk0miya commented May 25, 2019

Done in #6388.
Thank you for reporting!

@tk0miya tk0miya closed this as completed May 25, 2019
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 4, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
extensions:autodoc type:enhancement enhance or introduce a new feature
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants