What are you talking about?

Sorry, let me be more specific:
Today when we call the method call_getsignatures, the docstring for the signature is returned when using the docstring() method.
When iterating through the parameters of each signature using the "params" property, the docstring() for each of the parameters is empty.

My suggestion is why not determine the documentation of the corresponding parameter from the docstring of the function.

For instance the docstring for function_with_types_in_docstring can be extracted and is returned by jedi.
How about some how trying to parse that string to extract the documentation for the individual parameters?

However, there's a problem in supporting various docstring formats.

def function_with_types_in_docstring(param1, param2):
    """Example function with types documented in the docstring.

    `PEP 484`_ type annotations are supported. If attribute, parameter, and
    return types are annotated according to `PEP 484`_, they do not need to be
    included in the docstring:

    Args:
        param1 (int): The first parameter.
        param2 (str): The second parameter.

    Returns:
        bool: The return value. True for success, False otherwise.

    .. _PEP 484:
        https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/

    """

You are right. This would be a good idea. Parsing it is probably not that hard, since such logic already exists. (jedi/evaluate/docstrings.py). However I'm not actually sure on all the API implications.

I agree, maintaining backwards compatibility is necessary as this is widely used. How about we add this feature as an optional one, via an optional parameter to call_Getsignatures. I am more than happy to submit a pull request if you think this is the right approach.

@DonJayamanne Sorry for not answering back then. Are you still interested in doing such a pull request?

I unfortunately don't really like working with docstrings and so I'm probably not going to do it :).

Closing for now. Happy to reopen if someone feels like they want to work on this :).

Sorry for not answering back then. Are you still interested in doing such a pull request?

Oops, sorry for not replying. Somehow missed the original message.
I'm happy for this to be closed. Thanks for considering it.