On 5/19/07, Martin Blais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ 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
