Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:33:31 +1100
> Moshe Zadka writes:
> > A new version is in CVS archive, and should soon
> > be in the SF pages. Please comment.
> I think the "concensus" for StructuredText isn't right; I'm aware of
> no such decision.
There has been no such decision, but it seems apparent that DA some time
ago, and over the last few days myself, Ken and Tim have come out in favour
of it, with no real dissentions. A few of those mails stated that there
"appeared to be a consensus" on this, and no one argued.
> I think Tim's intent was that we still consider
> StructuredText (NG or otherwise).
I was saying something similar, but a little stronger: "we should prove that
StructuredText(NG) is _not_ suitable before looking at alternatives".
> My own inclination is that it isn't quite strong enough, but a
> variant would probably work just fine.
Agreed! But let's just move forward with _something_. I first started
looking at documentation tools about 3 years ago, and wrote a number of
docstrings for the purpose. In that entire 3 year period I have not been
able to generate anything. Sure, I could invent yet another solution of my
own, but I don't want to - that is one of the main points of this SIG.
We have to start somewhere, and soon. I could not sit through another
doc-sig meeting at the next conference arguing the same things we did 3
years ago, 2 years ago, and early this year. Moshe is to be commended to
taking ownership of this PEP, now we need to follow it through.