Question: What does darglint do that pylint.extensions.docparams does not?

[adamcunnington-gdt]

The README gives a useful overview of how darglint compares with pydocstyle and how it can be a complimentary part of a lint suite.

I am curious whether the author/maintainers are aware of https://pylint.pycqa.org/en/latest/technical_reference/extensions.html#pylint-extensions-docparams and whether there are specific deficiencies/omissions that darglint seeks to address?

[adamcunnington-gdt]

bump (from 21 days ago)

[terrencepreilly]

I'm not aware of it. Feel free to make a comparison and submit a PR to update the README. If I get a chance, I'll try it out. (It looks like it was around when I started this project -- I wish I had known about it then, I could have just contributed to it.) I'll keep this open until someone (or myself) has a chance to look at it.

[felixvd]

Not a comprehensive comment at all, but I stumbled upon this issue and ran both packages cursorily on an example file. My short impressions (read pylint as pylint.extensions.docparams where needed):

• pylint understands the newer Sphinx notation :param str name:, while darglint does not (it prints DAR102: +str name and DAR101: -name)
• pylint can auto-detect the docstring format, wihle darglint only accepts one format
• Setup was easier with darglint, the default setting to accept incomplete/missing arg documentation in pylint is unintuitive. When interested only in the documentation results, other pylint errors need to be disabled manually to avoid being buried in them.

Thanks for both this repo and the link to the pylint.extensions.docparams.