[Doc-SIG] Clarification: interpreted text vs. directives vs.substitutions

[Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)]

David Goodger wrote:
> Alan Jaffray wrote:
> > 2) I dislike the slashes.  To me they mean either "italics"
> > or "path" or "regex".  The latter two are also sources of
> > ambiguity.  I can't think of a *good* syntax, but I think
> > `` `|text here|` `` and ``.. |text here| directive:: args``
> > would be better.
>
> Decent alternative. I'll take it under advisement. (Now I've
> got judiciary delusions!)

Hmm. To me, the slashes remind me of something like::

    s/this/that/g

(I've probably got that slightly wrong) in ed-like languages, and since
that's the effect we want, I would vote for slashes over the other
alternatives (I have an idea the *actual* character used there doesn't
have to be a slash, but it's what just about everyone uses by default).

> Another possibility is `[name]`.

Ah, but that breaks the precedent that all inline escape sequences have
matched start and end characters (humph, I never thought I'd be
defending that policy as a principle!), so I'd argue against it on
"least startlement" grounds.

Tibs

--
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)      http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/
Give a pedant an inch and they'll take 25.4mm
(once they've established you're talking a post-1959 inch, of course)
My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.)