Refine syntax highlighting for Python docstrings #20898
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
cla-bot
bot
added
the
cla-signed
* Add highlighting for module- and class-level docstrings * Add highlighting for additional docstrings as described in PEP 257 * Remove highlighting for non-docstring string literals in functions
|
+1 on getting this rebased and merged soon :) |
|
I think the questions here are similar to the ones in: #21454 |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
|
Let's just roll with the current capture groups; we can always refine them later if needed. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Following up on #20763, this PR adds support for module- and class-level docstrings, adds "additional docstrings" as described in PEP 257, and fixes function-level docstrings so that only the first string literal in a function gets treated as a docstring.
One question that occurs to me is: Would it be good to capture attribute and additional docstrings differently from regular docstrings? E.g.
@string.doc.attribute,@string.doc.additional? PEP 257 mentions that unlike regular docstrings, these docstrings are ignored by the interpreter (regular docstrings get added as the__doc__property of the object they document), so I can see someone potentially wanting to style them a little differently.Release notes: