On 5/19/07, Martin Blais <blais at furius.ca> wrote:
> I haven't looked at it in depth yet, but I have a question. One
> concern from a long thread on Doc-Sig a long time ago, is that ReST
> did not at the time possess the ability to nicely markup the objects
> as LaTeX macros do. Is your transformation losing markup information
> from the original docs? e.g. are you still marking classes as classes
> and functions as functions in the ReST source, or is it converting
> from qualified markup to "style" markup (e.g., to generic literals
> instead of class/function/variable/keyword argument docutils roles,
> etc.). If you solved that problem, how did you solve it? Is the
> resulting ReST pretty?
Looking at http://pydoc.gbrandl.de/modules/collections.txt, I can see
it has markup like::
.. class:: deque([iterable])
Returns a new deque object initialized left-to-right (using :meth:`append()`)
with data from `iterable`. If `iterable` is not specified, the new deque is
empty.
.. method:: deque.append(x)
Add `x` to the right side of the deque.
So he's clearly got some of the info in there with things like ``..
class::`` and ``:meth:``.
STeVe
--
I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a
tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity.
--- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4