On Aug 9, 9:35 am, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> If we are looking for power, it would be good to focus on the word > "arbitrary" in the phrase "arbitrary rST code" above. This suggests > that **endless options** will not suffice. [snip] > Something different is needed. The next post will explore some > ideas... Typically, when I think of general solutions I think of scripting, or perhaps something equivalent to scripting in some sense, like regex's. Before considering scripting-related approaches, let's consider whether "endless options" really are endless. Yes, I did say that we want to generate arbitrary rST code nodes, but isn't that an over- statement? In fact, nodes consist of an (often implicit) list of code and doc parts. Isn't it enough to generate each part separately, but flexibly? Seen in this light, code and doc modes, and all the rest, don't seem *quite* as wretched. Still, this business of code and doc modes seems dubious. **Note**: I have on purpose *not* read the rst3 docs recently. I didn't want the present stuff to pollute the realm of ideas. In this respect, the present situation if good: I find it almost impossible to remember any of the details of the present rst3 options! Perhaps modes are the real problem. In effect, iirc, modes are a shorthand for a list of options. Might it make sense to require options to be listed independently? Maybe, but somehow I doubt it. Ok. Now that I have the issues more firmly in mind it is time to go back and study what presently exists... Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
