Well, not sure if it is a bug, just a difference in Markdown variants (that’s 
the big problem with Markdown, IMO, there are a number of slightly different
versions), or something that just wasn’t implemented yet.

Although, your comment, made clear something to me… although originally the 
check_string function was a wrapper around C code, and so had a 
very C-style interface, I was pushed by the Julian community to do a pure Julia 
implementation, so there’s no reason to be bound by C API.

What would you recommend, as a more Julia interface, where you have a set of 
options (in this case, all boolean flags)?
(I wonder if one of the more Julian ways might even be more efficient, if it 
allowed the compiler to generate a more specific version of the function)

Thanks,
Scott

> 
> Ah, that wasn't clear. Might just be another enhancement request for the 
> Markdown parser, then?
> 
> On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 12:28:53 PM UTC-5, Scott Jones wrote:
> I was not asking about that, but rather that Julia's Markdown handling 
> doesn't seem to be handling sublists as the Markdown examples I've seen...
> which I showed in the doc string...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jun 5, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Patrick O'Leary <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>> Since this is a very C-style interface, perhaps `man 2 open` which uses that 
>> style of option flag will get you somewhere?
>> 
>> On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 7:47:49 AM UTC-5, Scott Jones wrote:
>> I've been trying to write documentation for my Julia functions in a way that 
>> others will find acceptable,
>> but will still be useful to me.
>> I have a keyword argument, options, that has several different possible 
>> values or'ed in.
>> I would like to describe that, but it doesn't come out nicely:
>> 
>> @doc doc"""Silly function
>> 
>> long description
>> ### Input Arguments:
>> 1. abc  Description of argument
>> 2. def  Description of argument
>> 
>> ### Keyword Argument:
>> * options
>> 
>>   **option1  Description of option 1
>>   **option2  Description of option 2
>> 
>> ### Returns:
>>   * A UTF32String
>> 
>> ### Throws:
>>   * ArgumentError
>> """ -> foo
>> 
>> 

Reply via email to