Christopher G. Petrilli writes:

I wonder if it's possible to notate "platform specific" modules in italics or something? Just so people don't go looking for them if they

That would be nice. There's nothing in the documentation now that allows that information to be extracted; placement within a chapter is the only source of that information, making it essentially human- only. I think explicit markup of the information would be the most appropriate way to deal with this. Perhaps the \declaremodule could optionally be followed by a \platform macro that accepted a comma- separated list of platforms (sys.platform values) as a parameter. If \platform isn't specified, the module would be considered portable. The macro probably shouldn't generate any text, but could be used to produce information in an auxilliary file and the index. That auxilliary file could be used when generating other documentation items.

Also, how 'bout a link to this from the main doc page, I miss that :-)

That's comes with the general announcement. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake@acm.org> Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Dr. Reston, VA 20191

Christopher G. Petrilli writes:

Or maybe an option component of \declaremodule? This sounds good

\declaremodule currently has the form: \declaremodule[key]{standard|builtin|...}{modulename} where "key" is an optional parameter that is used to specify a reference key component when the modulename contains an underscore. Additional paramters would have to be required, and I don't want to penalize documentation authors for portable modules. Probably the easiest way to deal with it in LaTeX would be something like: \forplatform{myplat}{ \declaremodule... } which is a little ugly. I could probably work out the logistics with the less-hostile form (no nesting): \declaremodule... \platform{myplat}

though, as it would require people to explicitely document platform specific pieces, and eventually could be used to break the manual into pieces automatically.

I'd probably avoid fully automatic decomposition, but I can see having a script that would take a file like lib.tex and produce something similar but only with (or without) the bits for specific platforms. Once you have that, automation is mostly a matter of glue, though I'd expect it to be little used. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake@acm.org> Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Dr. Reston, VA 20191

skip@mojam.com writes:

This is great. Is this a "definite" for the documentation? If so, I can

In some form, probably not too different from the prototype.

Chris Petrelli suggested italics for the platform-specific docs. I think it would be better to have "sections" for each of the different platforms

Nice. If we can include explicit markup for platform dependencies in the documentation, I don't see any reason not to have both. They're mosly just different sort orders. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake@acm.org> Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Dr. Reston, VA 20191