Message184806
| Author |
terry.reedy |
| Recipients |
barry, docs@python, r.david.murray, sandro.tosi, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2013年03月20日.21:49:13 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1363816153.46.0.919369956059.issue15013@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
By current standards, we normally document all public methods.
.rset() and .noop() are trivial, "same as .docmd('funcname')"
.help() is almost trivial, just removing the first field of the reply (I assume a return code). 'returns message part of .putcmd('help')"
.mail(s, options) and .rcpt(r, options) are not so trivial. Explaining the possible options, I presume defined in the rfcs and used elsewhere by other methods, seems beyond the scope of the docs. "Open mail session; for *options* list, see RFCs" might be a possible entry.
.data(msg) also seems complicated in its details. I can see why the author left out such minutia for something that normally should not be called. I would be inclined to just say "Send message to server; see docstring for details." |
|