[Doc-SIG] Docststring markup process
Edward D. Loper
Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:29:39 EST
> I actually would like to see the PEP for STpy I'm working on and the
> (eventual) PEP for STminus *both* accepted - that is, it's useful to
> have the "full blown Common Lisp" approach for doing Python specific
> work, but it's also useful to have the "tight and well defined Scheme"
> approach for writing stuff that you *know* will "compile" under both
Of course, even clisp has a formal definition.. ;) I'd like STminus
to expand to eventually be able to provide a formal definition of
STpy. Of course, it would be an underspecified definition, so it
wouldn't say what to do with things like::
This **is a *pretty **messed *up **docstring.
But it should still describe every *reasonable* use of STpy...
Now, that may not be an entirely reasonable goal.. but only time
will tell. :)
But, at any rate, the idea of doing 2 PEPs is to see which one people
like better. I'm not planning on proposing STminus001 as a formatting
convention. I think that's not very reasonable. But Maybe
STpyminus099 (i.e., STminus with py extensions (such as #..# and list
items without blank lines), version 99).
Well, I guess I'll have to wait to see what you write up for your
PEP to decide..