Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>
> > > In fact I wrote it because I do want it for ReST. When I first
> > > proposed it that was my sell. I received pushback because it was for
> > > too specific a purpose so I stepped back and showed that it was simply
> > > a logical extension that happened to work as ReST input. Now it seems
> > > that unless it is 100% ReST and documented as such it will be rejected.
> > >
> > > I'm feeling the ground shift under me.
> >
> > Can you find an email that shows this; I don't remember a shift.
>
> I'm surprised that you find this surprising. It happens all the time.
> People change their mind, or they forget the decision they took last
> time and take the opposite one later. Tom said that he didn't see a
> value in rst:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/27079.1219365411%40sss.pgh.pa.us
> Andrew supported this view. However, their arguments were debunked.
Right, so Tom says it isn't 100% ReST:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-08/msg01310.php
and that is what I remember. I see no one liking the format for
esthetic sake, but only for ReST.
Here is where escaping backslashes was discussed:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-08/msg01323.php
Here is where someone says having it be 100% compliant is a waste of
time (which is almost sure to doom their argument): ;-)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-08/msg01311.php
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
