Joris Van den Bossche

> GeoJSON does have a pretty standard interpretation when used in this context (e.g., both GEOS and BigQuery will happily read it for you) Just to be sure: is this...

I was going to say: I don't see this behavior locally, both with the latest main (basically 0.11 release) as with geopandas 0.10.2. But so it appears I was still...

I opened a PR to pandas to fix this: https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/47762

@stefanv That only gives a problem for one character param names (not possible to distinguish between description / overflow of type specification). But of course one character keywords is also...

Also that can give dubious cases / conflicts with current usage. Eg in ``` a : type Possible values: - blabla - blabla ``` Although it looks less nice, the...

\+ 1 to actually supporting that syntax, and not dropping the description (although a warning/error would certainly also be an improvement). I also encountered this in the pandas docs.

For pandas we used the same 'hack' as in the numpy docs: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/numpy/numpy/master/doc/source/_templates/autosummary/class.rst, but I am not sure anymore if this was to solve those error messages (long time ago...

It's related to the longish discussion I had here https://github.com/numpy/numpydoc/pull/106#issuecomment-343220139. I still think it would be good if numpydoc would want to support this usecase of keeping the Attributes listing...

To be correct, IMO we didn't make a "wrong" choice in pandas, we just made "a" choice, since the standards are (explicitly) ambiguous. PEP257 says: *"The summary line may be...

@Eric89GXL I think that would be very interesting (I would like to use it for pandas). If you have a link to the code, I would gladly test it