Hi all, David, thanks for your reply to my last issue, we seemed to have solved it by having the requirements change underneath us... I'll try to find the place where the state machine seemed to be poking through (and dependant on file vs. StringIO). It had to do with how the include directive finds it's source directory. Of course, finding the source directory from a string (vs. a file) will be *problematic* in any case. %-) Today's issue is autonumbered lists. Since ordered lists autonumber themselves by default (in HTML), this seems like it would be easily accomplished, and I thought I remembered the notation: #. list item one #. list item two #. list item three But after trying it and going through the docs, I appear to have substituted footnote notation for list notation. Is there a clear and present reason why we don't do autonumbering for lists? What is the order of magnitude of the work needed to add it? I also wanted to share a success story. After proseletizing restructured text around the office, I finally gave up. Recently I was asked to implement a lightweight content repository and reST came up as a possible feature. So now we have a lightweight CMS with search integrated over both reST and Word documents (and our issue tracking and versioning systems), with portal-type templating, automatic reST processing, filesystem and webserver integration. It's been relatively straightforward, very successful, and now everyone in the office is learning to use reST. Thanks! --Dethe "Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years now, doctor, and I'm happy to state I've finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd, Harvey
Dethe Elza wrote:
Today's issue is autonumbered lists.
This came up recently on docutils-users. I wrote: Some thought has gone into it, and a patch for one alternative has been produced. See <http://docutils.sf.net/spec/rst/alternatives.html#auto-enumerated-lists>.
But after trying it and going through the docs, I appear to have substituted footnote notation for list notation.
I don't follow. An example is worth a lot of words. ;-)
Is there a clear and present reason why we don't do autonumbering for lists?
No clear winning syntax has presented itself. The only implementation done to date is for a candidate syntax that probably isn't a winner. The issue requires discussion and implementation. It isn't interesting enough to me to make me want to implement it myself.
What is the order of magnitude of the work needed to add it?
It would require some parser work. New syntax would require new regexps. It wouldn't be a huge task, but the parser code is a bit hairy. Contributions are, as always, most welcome.
I also wanted to share a success story. After proseletizing restructured text around the office, I finally gave up.
Often new & radical ideas take a while to percolate.
It's been relatively straightforward, very successful, and now everyone in the office is learning to use reST.
Thanks!
You're welcome. May your office experience increased efficiency through decreased reliance on Word. :-) David Goodger http://starship.python.net/~goodger For hire: http://starship.python.net/~goodger/cv Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/ (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html)
On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 07:14 PM, David Goodger wrote:
Dethe Elza wrote:
Today's issue is autonumbered lists.
This came up recently on docutils-users. I wrote:
Some thought has gone into it, and a patch for one alternative has been produced. See <http://docutils.sf.net/spec/rst/alternatives.html#auto-enumerated- lists>.
Ah, I see. I was thinking of #2: #. Item one #. Item two or 3. Initialize first number #. Autonumber from there or a) Initialize enumeration sequence #) Autonumber from there This is how a couple of the new docutils users around the office assumed it would work, so there is something to be said for the intuitiveness of this approach. It is as close to the bullet lists of reST as possible, while still adding the extra information that enumerated lists need.
But after trying it and going through the docs, I appear to have substituted footnote notation for list notation.
I don't follow. An example is worth a lot of words. ;-)
From the quickref: Autonumbered footnotes are possible, like using [#]_ and [#]_. .. [#] This is the first one. .. [#] This is the second one.
Is there a clear and present reason why we don't do autonumbering for lists?
No clear winning syntax has presented itself. The only implementation done to date is for a candidate syntax that probably isn't a winner. The issue requires discussion and implementation. It isn't interesting enough to me to make me want to implement it myself.
I guess I'll have to take a look at the patch and see if I can follow what it's doing. --Dethe "The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production." -- George W. Bush
Dethe Elza wrote:
I'll try to find the place where the state machine seemed to be poking through (and dependant on file vs. StringIO). It had to do with how the include directive finds it's source directory.
Please be sure you're using the latest Docutils code from CVS. ISTR that a relevant bug was fixed recently.
Of course, finding the source directory from a string (vs. a file) will be *problematic* in any case. %-)
Very true. I think the best way to proceed is to use the current working directory as a base for relative paths. If "include" doesn't already do that, please open a bug report. -- David Goodger http://starship.python.net/~goodger For hire: http://starship.python.net/~goodger/cv Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/ (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html)
participants (2)
-
David Goodger -
Dethe Elza