[Doc-SIG] Re: "docutils"
David Goodger
goodger@users.sourceforge.net
Tue, 11 Sep 2001 23:31:07 -0400
[David, in private correspondence]
>> By the way, would you mind if the DPS (or some superset
>> thereof) were to use the name "docutils"?
[Tony, replying]
> By all means.
Great.
> I don't actually think I came up with the name, anyway
Checking the complete Doc-SIG archive... The earliest reference to
"docutils" was by Fred Drake on 2 Dec 1999. The next was indeed the one you
referenced, 27 Nov 2000, from Fred in reply to your "What do we want to
*call* this thing?". It was just after I posted the first draft of
reStructuredText. The earliest reference to "docutil" is in a filename
from the gendoc package, on 23 Jan 1997.
>> I think it's a much more memorable name than "DPS", a mere
>> acronym, and it matches "distutils" nicely. Perhaps
>> "docutils" would be an umbrella package, subsuming the DPS
>> as a backend engine, and exposing a user-friendly collection
>> of tools.
>
> I think that's a good idea.
Perhaps it's time for a new SourceForge project?
(Only half-joking here.)
> But it does mean I now don't know what to call "pydps" (since "pydoc"
> is already taken).
How about "dps.modes.pythondocstring" or just "dps.modes.docstring" (do you
think anyone will ever implement an Emacs-lisp docstring mode? :-). I think
dps.modes is where much of it will go. Parts may go into a "styles"
subpackage (the one that determines how the raw input gets transformed
stylistically).
--
David Goodger goodger@users.sourceforge.net Open-source projects:
- Python Docstring Processing System: http://docstring.sourceforge.net
- reStructuredText: http://structuredtext.sourceforge.net
- The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net