No, it's still there in the form of a half-finished patch. Stay tuned :) Georg
Bob Tolbert schrieb: > Hi Georg, > > Looks like you made it through exams and are hard back at work on > Sphinx. Is there any chance the feature discussed below can make it > into 0.5? Do I need to log it somewhere else as a feature request? > > Bob > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Bob Tolbert schrieb: >>> I'd like to offer a suggestion for an enhancement to cmdoption. I find >>> that I need to document multiple, small programs in the same document. >>> And many of them have a common option like "-in". >>> >>> The current method will cause a clash if the two are defined in the >>> same .rst file. Fine, I can put them in separate files, but when it >>> comes time to reference or index these options, they don't work as >>> expected. >>> >>> I'd like to suggest an additional keyword, much like ".. module::", >>> say ".. program:: foo" that sets the "current" program that all >>> options are members of. Then references could be :option:`foo-in` >>> instead of just :option:`-in`. This will remove the ambiguity. And if >>> the "..program:: foo" is never set, then the current behavior is >>> unchanged. >> >> This is a good idea. I will try to implement it in Sphinx 0.5. >> >> Georg >> >> > >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sphinx-dev" 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/sphinx-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
