Where we don’t do this:
References
——————————
.. [dilbert] Scott Adams @ https://dilbert.com/strip/2007-11-26
Where we don’t do this:
References
——————————
.. [dilbert] Scott Adams @ https://dilbert.com/strip/2007-11-26
The x-ref PR is wrapping up and I want to document the various possible followups that have cropped up. In an unexplained but very particular order:
standardize usage of optional
and keyword-only
for optional OR keyword-only arguments.
(optional, keyword-only)
unignore the numpy array subclassing terms (in conf.py)
Implement some sub-package specific glossary terms, e.g. “frame-instance” (as suggested by @adrn)
get all parameters that had to be converted to rst code markup x-ref’ed
Expand input types by making more things “-like” by passing them through their relevant constructors. E.g. more things that only accept an angle should also be able to accept angle-like strings.
Parameter descriptions have a lot of inexactness, like claiming something must be a function, when it can be any callable. Correct this.
Get the x-ref links to look the same as the other links. See Getting started — numpydoc v1.2.dev0 Manual
Implement physical types annotations on quantity (and quantity-like) parameters
Similarly, where it is more clear, use typing
-like syntax to explain sub-types: dict[str, float]
over dict with string keys and float values
finalize array shape syntax and how it applies to non-NumPy arrays. What is a (3,2)
tuple? or even what is the difference between 2 tuple
and (2,) tuple
?
array versus ndarray. Generally identical in intent, but different in practice.
does number
include complex?
absolutize document links in SkyCoord that prevent 3rd party packages that have x-ref turned on from subclassing SkyCoord .