> > 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. > > Well. That was a bad example. But if you look at the converted sources and > open > the source file you can see that rst is a lot cleaner that latex for this type > of documentation.
In your examples, I think the ReST version can be cleaned up quite a bit. First by using the .. default-role:: literal directive so that you can type `foo()` instead of using double back quotes and then you can remove the redundant semantic markup. Like this: `\*?`, `+?`, `??` The "`*`", "`+`" and "`?`" qualifiers are all *greedy*; they match as much text as possible. Sometimes this behaviour isn't desired; if the RE `<.*>` 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 *non-greedy* or *minimal* fashion; as *few* characters as possible will be matched. Using `.*?` in the previous expression will match only `'<H1>'`. The above is the most readable version. For example, semantic markup like :regexp:`<.\*>` doesn't serve any useful purpose. The end result is that the text is typesetted with a fixed-width font, no matter if you prepend :regexp: to it or not. -- mvh Björn _______________________________________________ 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
