A general purpose compiled language should be suitable for writing its own compiler, but I don’t think the same holds true for interpreted languages.

not sure if this is a typo or a misunderstanding, but to be clear: pdoc does not treat a comment immediately below a variable declaration as a docstring, it treats an unassigned string immediately following a variable declaration as a docstring, same as how python treats an unassigned string literal immediately following a function signature as a docstring

    my_var = 5
    "documentation for my_var"

    def my_func():
        "documentation for my_func"

also worth noting, pdoc didn't invent this design pattern, sphinx did (or perhaps something preceding sphinx?)

and since sphinx is the documentation tool of choice by the python core devs to document python itself, i have to assume they've given this design pattern at least tacit approval... :shrug:

That’s amazing!

Hats off to you for getting as far as you have, and don’t sweat the stuff you haven’t been able to get to yet. Nobody (hopefully) expects you to freely share the code you write in any sort of expected time frame.

These things take as long as they take :)

I believe the astral devs plan to eventually merge rye into their “uv” tool, so this may end up being a self-correcting problem

I was hoping for something like that when I saw the news about rye + uv / astral.

That is VERY cool!