BJörn Lindqvist schrieb: >> > 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:
I've already assigned the default role to `var` since it's used most frequently. Having two ways of spelling literal code is wasting markup, for me. > 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. Yes, there are a few semantic roles that may be obsolete. Georg _______________________________________________ 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
