[Doc-SIG] Docststring markup process

[Edward D. Loper]

> 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
> systems...

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..

-Edward