[Doc-SIG] field syntax (was re: lists & blank lines)
Edward D. Loper
edloper@gradient.cis.upenn.edu
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:50:25 EDT
> > > 1. I like the number e. This number is approximately equal to
> > > 2.71828182846. But it's irrational, so that's an
> (a) the label isn't of a standard pattern the same as the first item
> ("\d+\. "; no space after the "2."; I don't think we should allow
> floating-point enumerators, hm? :);
> (b) the label isn't sequential with the first item's label
> (1 + 1 != 2.718...);
> (c) if we permit nested lists through compound enumerators, sublists must
> start with "1" or equivalent, and this one doesn't.
>
> Convinced? If not, why *would* the parser pass the second line through
> unchallenged? Please show your work ;-)
Sorry, you're right, I wasn't being explicit enough. I was
assuming that ordered list bullets were "(\d+\.)+", because that's
what we decided last time around the loop.. The idea was that
people might want to say "2.1." or something. But I don't have
any problem with restricting ordered list bullets to "\d+\.".
But the problem still exists, albeit in a more rare form:
1. I like the number 3. It comes right after the number
2. It comes right before the number 4.
But I think that really we agree. I'm just saying that *in
principle* it's ambiguous to a reader, but that any sane reader
would complain about it anyway.. so we can ignore that
ambiguity.
On a side note, I'm not sure whether we should enforce (b) and
(c). I guess my gut instinct would be to generate a warning
for them, but not an error.. They prevent people from having
an enumerated list that's intersperced with text (e.g.,
that's normally done in math papers with the math formulas..).
I guess that's not a great loss, though, in the context of
writing docstrings.
-Edward