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 .