[Doc-SIG] What's important in a docstring markup language?
Juergen Hermann" <firstname.lastname@example.org
Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:04:16 +0100
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:28:03 -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>IMO, URLs don't need any special markup. They can just be recognized
>in the text and automatically highlighted. Lots of tools processing
>plain text do this (including the FAQ wizard, which has a trick or two
>to make this work reliably even when there's punctuation following the
+1 (actually, you kicked me in the right direction to improve
MoinMoin's code in that respect ;).
I think we should go the plain text route, with _conservative_ regexes
(i.e. a sane implementation) and not too fancy markup (Tony's list).
The main thing to consider in a first implementation is that we do not
paint ourselves into a corner (like using too much markup characters
that'll make it hard to keep the "plain readable text" idea).
If people want STNG in docstrings, plug in a parser for it. On the
problem of deciding what parser to use, I propose to add some hint on a =
per module basis (mixing several docstring styles per module would be a =
silly, unsuported idea). Either by a magic variable in the module, or a =
magic comment, or some hint in the module's docstring.
J=FCrgen Hermann, Developer (email@example.com)
WEB.DE AG, http://webde-ag.de/