[Doc-SIG] formalizing StructuredText

Edward D. Loper edloper@gradient.cis.upenn.edu
Thu, 15 Mar 2001 22:12:35 EST

> >    * Apostrophes can appear in the middle of a word or at the end
> >      of a word, like "isn't" and "dogs'".  Is it illegal to have
> >      multiple apostrophes in the same word?  There are no English
> >      words that use multiple apostrophes, but I'm not sure about
> oh no.  Excuse me while I switch into <mode perversion=counterexample>
(perverted counterexamples...)
> But I think we can safely say that authors of docstrings will be
> prepared to retract anything that perverse, once the tools complain.
> You should apply the same reasoning to some of your other worries.

I find myself going back and forth, because it's really not hard (from
a tools perspective) to allow words with multiple apostrophes..  The
main disadvantage I can see is that people might think that in::


"big" will be rendered as literal...

> (well bugger me - my #inline(code)# proposal got implemented !)

That was your idea?  One day, we should trace back all of these ideas
to their originators, and maybe give them credit or something. :)

> ... a few counter-cases ...
> and what about
>   2a. subsidiary cases
> not to mention
>   3: some of us like colons
> but, to be quite frank, ([0-9]+\.)+ sounds fine to me.  

It's hard to come up with a rule that's both simple and safe, but
covers cases like '2a.' and '3:'.  So, unless Tibs or others 
strongly object, I think we should just stick with '([0-9]+\.)+'. :)

> >        * What do you do with things like::
> >
> >            This *is "too* confusing":http://some.url
> Find author, apply pain (to taste).
> Give them the opportunity to retract.
> If they refuse, apply lethal doses of pain.
> Then they won't repeat the offence.
> No problem.

Perhaps I should rephrase that.  What should a *parser* do? 
I guess "die" is a good answer, though it sounds like you might
prefer something along the lines of "erase their hard drive." :)