POD vs. reST for standalone writing?

[David Goodger]

eichin at metacarta.com wrote:
> Now I start seeing mention of reStructuredText (especially in comments
> about pyCon.)  reST files look very "ascii art" on the input side, but
> after a little experiment, that seems to make them *harder* to write,
> if somewhat (and I think only a little) easier to read. 

That's significant: "somewhat (and I think only a little) easier to 
read".  I designed reStructuredText to be a *lot* easier to read. 
Opinions vary of course, I think mostly determined by what you're used 
to.  (Some people think in XML, others dream in TeX.  Not me.)

As for being harder to write, that may be true, especially if the author 
isn't used to the markup yet.  In reStructuredText, readability is 
deemed far more important than writability.  But with increasing 
familiarity comes increasing ease of writing.

> Am I missing something?

Just have an open mind, and enlightenment may come to you.  Where it 
comes *from*, I cannot say. ;-)

> Is there actually a reST clear short hand,
> and a tool that expands it to full-blown ascii-art?

No, although there is some work being done on a reStructuredText Emacs mode.

> Or is at least fuzzy in the counting of dashes and other punctuation
> for marking different levels?

I don't understand the question; please clarify.

-- 
David Goodger    http://starship.python.net/~goodger    Projects:
   * Python Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
     (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html)
   * The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net/