Armin Ronacher writes:
> rst is simpler than latex:
>
> LaTeX:
>
> \item[\code{*?}, \code{+?}, \code{??}] The \character{*},
> \character{+}, and \character{?} qualifiers are all \dfn{greedy}; they
> match as much text as possible. Sometimes this behaviour isn't
> desired; if the RE \regexp{<.*>} is matched against
> \code{'<H1>title</H1>'}, it will match the entire string, and not just
> \code{'<H1>'}. Adding \character{?} after the qualifier makes it
> perform the match in \dfn{non-greedy} or \dfn{minimal} fashion; as
> \emph{few} characters as possible will be matched. Using \regexp{.*?}
> in the previous expression will match only \code{'<H1>'}.
>
> Here the same in rst:
>
> ``*?``, ``+?``, ``??``
> The ``'\*'``, ``'+'``, and ``'?'`` qualifiers are all :dfn:`greedy`;
> they match as much text as possible. Sometimes this behaviour isn't
> desired; if the RE :regexp:`<.\*>` is matched against
> ``'<H1>title</H1>'``, it will match the entire string, and not just
> ``'<H1>'``. Adding ``'?'`` after the qualifier makes it perform the
> match in :dfn:`non-greedy` or :dfn:`minimal` fashion; as *few*
> characters as possible will be matched. Using :regexp:`.\*?` in the
> previous expression will match only ``'<H1>'``.
IMO that pair of examples shows clearly that, in this application,
reST is not an improvement over LaTeX in terms of readability/
writability of source. It's probably not worse, although I can't help
muttering "EIBTI". In particular I find the "``'...'``" construct
horribly unreadable because it makes it hard to find the Python syntax
in all the reST.
I don't think that's an argument against switching to reST, though.
Georg's site speaks for itself. Kudos!
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
