[Python-Dev] The docs, reloaded

Steven Bethard steven.bethard at gmail.com
Sun May 20 04:19:25 CEST 2007

On 5/19/07, Martin Blais <blais at furius.ca> wrote:
> I haven't looked at it in depth yet, but I have a question.  One
> concern from a long thread on Doc-Sig a long time ago, is that ReST
> did not at the time possess the ability to nicely markup the objects
> as LaTeX macros do.   Is your transformation losing markup information
> from the original docs?  e.g. are you still marking classes as classes
> and functions as functions in the ReST source, or is it converting
> from qualified markup to "style" markup (e.g., to generic literals
> instead of class/function/variable/keyword argument docutils roles,
> etc.).    If you solved that problem, how did you solve it?  Is the
> resulting ReST pretty?

Looking at http://pydoc.gbrandl.de/modules/collections.txt, I can see
it has markup like::

.. class:: deque([iterable])

   Returns a new deque object initialized left-to-right (using :meth:`append()`)
   with data from `iterable`.  If `iterable` is not specified, the new deque is

.. method:: deque.append(x)

   Add `x` to the right side of the deque.

So he's clearly got some of the info in there with things like ``..
class::`` and ``:meth:``.

I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a
tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity.
        --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list