On ordered Lists (was RE: [Doc-SIG] Formalizing ST)

Peter Funk pf@artcom-gmbh.de
Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:13:21 +0200 (MEST)


I wrote:
> > I bullet item list (LaTeX itemize) seems to be enough for most cases.
> > A few days ago Guido gave a similar statement.

Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) replied:
> I'm not sure he exactly said that, but if he did, he was wrong (it *is*
> possible, he just normally uses the time machine to go back and alter
> the records after he changes his mind).

I would love to watch the time machine altering the doc-sig archive 
on python.org and make this email non existent in a parallel universe. :-)

I meant the following 2 EMails written by Guido: In
Guido replied on an email from me:
> > I think, a description list can be dropped alltogether.  
> Yes!  They are darn ugly in HTML anyway.
> > At least for the time being a bullet list will be enough.  
> Agreed.

Later in 
he wrote as a reply to mailto:edloper%40gradient.cis.upenn.edu:
> > Well.. I'm not sure whether we'd want to do that or not.. We
> > may be happy with just using '1.' and assuming that no one will
> > start a line with a number that ends a sentence..
> That was ST's the original sin.

IMO these are pretty clear statements.  

If INDENT and DETENT tokens are part of a 
upcoming EBNF docstring grammar,  I think it might be possible to
come up with rules for ordered and descriptive lists later on, which 
will not suffer from ST patterns which trigger in error.

Regards, Peter
Peter Funk, Oldenburger Str.86, D-27777 Ganderkesee, Germany, Fax:+49 4222950260
office: +49 421 20419-0 (ArtCom GmbH, Grazer Str.8, D-28359 Bremen, Germany)