[Doc-SIG] gendoc 0.71 patch

[Andrew Kuchling]

Daniel Larsson writes:
>FYI, I've uploaded a new version (0.72) on my starship account
>(http://starship.skyport.net/crew/danilo). I've fixed a number
>of problems (0.71 was totally crappy...).

	Great!

	So, what do people think about the problem of implementing
good TeX support?  Last night I produce some reference docs for
saxlib.py with a lot of cutting and pasting from docstrings; it was
easy, but tedious.  From my original doc-sig message:

>	My motivation for adding a TeX formatter is for the ongoing
>XML work; some of it has very good docstrings which could make up the
>docs, so I'd like to modify gendoc to output LaTeX code suitable for
>the Library Reference (or similar documents such as HOWTOs).  Adding
>TeX output that uses '\code{' and '}' instead of '<code>' and
>'</code>' wasn't difficult, but the output doesn't look anything like
>the usual docs because the structure is different; there are things
>like \section SYNOPSIS, instead of \section{gendoc module}.  The
>document structure hard-wired into the code is different from that in
>the LaTeX docs.
>
>	Any suggestions about the approach that should be taken to fix
>this?
>
>	There are smaller issues; in LaTeX we want to do more detailed
>markup, such as \class{Message} and \function{input()}, but perhaps
>that will have to be left to manual editing afterwards.

-- 
A.M. Kuchling			http://starship.skyport.net/crew/amk/
Life at the top is financially rewarding, spiritually draining, physically
exhausting, and short.
    -- Peter C. Newman, _The Canadian Establishment_ (1975)