On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Ken Manheimer wrote:
No flames here, i'm only for going with StructuredText if it suits the purpose. But i don't understand your disqualifying criterion. Specifically, i don't see *why* there must be a one-to-one correspondence between the OOL and docstring documentation.
You seemed to have missed my point -- it being that there is (in XML nomencalture) an element type in OOL docs whose content corresponds one-to-one to valid docstrings. Please re-read my post in light of this clarification, and see if you still have objections to it. I think that answers your problems, but then again maybe *I* didn't understand *you*.
If so, i don't see why the StructuredText approach would be disqualified at the outset (colloquialism for "at the start"). And in fact it seems to me that something like StructuredText is necessary to satisfy readability/naturalness, if those are in fact requirements.
Well, depends on the type of readability you mean. StructuredText seems a bit too much DWIM (Perlish for "do what I mean") for it to be something I'm too comfortable with, particularily as to how well it can satisfy some "one-to-one" mapping req. which I think we can agree is neccassery for any coherence in the documentation system. -- Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>. INTERNET: Learn what you know. Share what you don't.