On Monday, 28 May 2012 16:27:55 UTC-4, Roger Binns wrote: > > > Given that Sphinx' operation works the way it does, I think that > > properly implementing "conditional inclusion" that operates as you > > would /hope/ it to is actually a very, very difficult problem (or > > potentially very difficult). > > If Sphinx did only/ifconfig as the very first pass then things would work > perfectly. The problem is it appears to do it in the middle which is what > leads to all the problems. >
That would seem to be the right thing to do, yes. It might have follow-on implications, but at least it would act as a complete conditional to chop out blocks of text in complete ignorance of what those blocks include. Frankly, I'd like to see a conditional of both types: one that gets done like that, as the first operation (as in the C-preprocessor) and one that gets done after the Sphinx app has some intelligence about the actual contents of the document. -- V. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sphinx-dev" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sphinx-dev/-/huX35MPMLMYJ. To post to this group, send email to sphinx-dev@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sphinx-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sphinx-dev?hl=en.
