Michael Hudson wrote: > Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> A brief but resounding +1 to the idea of standardising Python doc >> generation using docutils. > > Are you talking about the existing Python documentation? Or just a > way of making the "blue arrows" HTML from ReST?
I think there's no need to make blue arrows from reST (yet). The first step to do would be to have a way to generate LaTeX code suitable for the current tool-chain. > The issue with the existing documentation is that it exists, and in > latex... Since the LaTeX code is quite well-structured, I suppose it's possible to convert it to reST. But that's at least one step too early now. First thing to do is implementing directive- and role-equivalents for all macros described at <http://docs.python.org/doc/special-constructs.html>. And maybe we could use a standard way of passing multiple parameters to a role (see <http://docs.python.org/doc/inline-markup.html> for examples of where that's needed). However, the (probably better) alternative to a unified way of passing multiple parameters is to have the role handler code do its own individual parsing, e.g. :versionchanged:`2.4: New flag XY.` for the two parameters ``2.4`` and ``New flag XY.`` (separated by ": "), and :manpage:`latex(1)` for ``latex`` and ``1``. Both roles take multiple parameters, but they have different ways of separating them. -- For private mail please ensure that the header contains 'Felix Wiemann'. http://www.ososo.de/ _______________________________________________ Doc-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/doc-sig
