[Doc-SIG] Re: docstring signatures (small implementation)
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)
Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:14:53 +0100
Edward D. Loper wrote:
> So are there any vocal opponents of using a real markup language
> on doc-sig right now? (Assuming that Guido doesn't want us
> to use something like ST)..
I suspect they will have self-deselected.
Actually, I don't remember seeing anyone against markup in Doc-SIG -
people who want *heavyweight* markup, yes, but not people who want none.
> Of course, on the other hand, if we can clean ST up enough, and
> make it formal, maybe he'll be ok with it.
I hope so - I am a bit worried. I still want it for myself, of course
(and so have a lot of other people) - so we may just need to "rally the
> I'm going to put my PEP on hold for now, until we figure this stuff
> out.. (if anyone wants to see what I've written so far, though,
> I'll be happy to send you a copy -- just email me).
I'd like a copy, of course (!)
> I'm also thinking of putting together a "minimal" ST-like language,
> that would include markup for:
> * lists
> * emph
> * literals (one type, probably using '#' as delimiters)
> * urls (using '<>' delimiters)
> * literal blocks
I think that would be a good thing.
> But maybe we'd be better off just using XML.. :) or something like
> javadoc ('@param(x) foo..', etc.)..
We *went round* this loop at least twice before, and it doesn't fly.
People won't do it.
> Something in the spirit of ST but done properly would have a better
> chance than something striving to be ST without its warts, IMO.
I must admit I would have been happier in many ways if we could drop
some of the inheritance from STClassic (and compatibility intents with
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/
"How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive
continuity of ducks." - Dorothy L. Sayers, "Gaudy Night"
My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.)