[TIP] Nose and doctests in extension modules...

[Fernando Perez]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:07 PM, C. Titus Brown <ctb at msu.edu> wrote:
> -> I really appreciate your help, I just think that the current situation
> -> is still not satisfactory.  For context, all of this concerns NumPy
> -> and SciPy: there's lots of interest in those projects in using more
> -> doctests, and we recently switched to using nose for all numpy/scipy
> -> testing.  But numpy/scipy have gobs of extension code, and adequate
> -> support for nose finding doctests in extension code is really a huge
> -> issue for us in the long run.
>
> I can't work on this myself, but:
>
> +1
>
> Scientific code depends HEAVILY on C extensions, so this is really
> important.
>
> (Fernando, if it isn't fixed by SciPy, let's sit down and fix it
> together.)

Sounds like a good plan.  I'm doing a fair amount of  nose related
work right now for ipython,  so there's a slim chance I might get to
it.  But if  I don't, we can pound on it at scipy.

With all due respect to Jason, the 'put the doctests elsewhere'
approach is simply not acceptable, since doctests *belong* in
docstrings as an integral part of a function's documentation.  So this
needs to be fixed, I'm afraid.

Cheers,

f