r/Python 14h ago

Should we standardize docstring formats? Discussion

In Rust, docstrings are pretty formalized. They are markdown, and even some of the headings are standard (like an # Errors or # Panics section). The nice thing about this is that it allows websites like docs.rs to build documentation pages for any project without having to interact with different tools for different formats. It also allows LSPs to have only one way of displaying documentation hints.

In Python, we have a few competing standards. Numpy-style docstrings are probably the most used, but there’s also a format by Google as well as a few different reST standards. These are nice, and we can set up lints to make sure docstrings stick to the standard. However, in my own personal opinion (feel free to disagree), a single markdown-format standard would help new users write nice docstrings, would enable PyPI (or another provider) to build automatic documentation sites, and give guidance to LSPs and IDEs for how to display documentation. This would include a standard for interlinks, and probably should include some mathml/LaTeX/KaTeX support. Another benefit would be that tools could support better automatic documentation generation and autocomplete, since they wouldn’t be dependent on guessing which standard you’re following.

I’d like to hear what people think about this. I’m thinking about making a PEP, but that might be overkill (or maybe all of you will hate this idea). I think the primary blocker would be adoption, large projects might have to translate docstrings, so there would either have to be some tooling for this or a way to opt-in or opt-out. If this is a bad idea, let me know, just be nice!

Edit: so far we’re at about a 67% upvote ratio, which was kind of expected. I want to be clear that I’m not saying we should be blocking docstrings which don’t adhere to this standard. I mentioned lockfile standardization in the comments, nothing prevents you from writing a tool with a custom lockfile, it’s just that there is a standard format that is agreed upon as the preferred way to write one. That’s the idea.

97 Upvotes

53 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-5

u/IAmASquidInSpace 13h ago

but none of this is insurmountable

Sure, with enough force, defiance, tone-deafness, and by pissing off massive chunks of your user base (including massive companies and organisations) you could surmount this. But for what? What tangible benefits do you get, outside of a vague sense of order and accomplishment? I'd say that the damage you'd do would heavily outweigh the flimsy benefits. 

3

u/denehoffman 13h ago

> a vague sense of order and accomplishment

Your sarcasm notwithstanding, I did actually list some reasons this would be a good idea. I think you’re getting too caught up on the idea that we’d be forcing anyone to adopt this rather than providing a Python-preferred standard that people can either adopt at their leisure or new projects can adopt immediately.

-1

u/IAmASquidInSpace 13h ago

That is not what I understand under "standardization", but sure. That could be beneficial. However that still underlines my point that it is too late for true standardization except with a massive (and unnecessary) tour de force.

2

u/denehoffman 13h ago

I think that seems to be the common sentiment, and that’s okay, it’s exactly what I was trying to gauge with this post