[Doc-SIG] formalizing StructuredText
Edward D. Loper
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>
> 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." :)