[Doc-SIG] <tt> tagging (was Re: Some random thoughts)

[Edward Welbourne]

Peter:
> <tt> (typewriter style)
David Ascher:
> Can you justify it a bit better?  IMO, <tt> is like <bold> -- it's
Peter:
> doc string parser should at least be able to classify certain
> *paragraphs* as items containing performatted material

Peter: you make a clear case for us to include a verbatim keyword among
the Keyword:-and-indent idioms previously considered.  What you
*haven't* made a case for is an equivalent of an *in-paragraph* form,
which is what I thought you were asking for.

I don't think anyone would disagree with the need for a Verbatim: tag to
introduce preformatted text that needs a monospaced font.  I'm fairly
sure we'd all be happy with this being a separate tag from the Code: or
Example: tag (however it gets spelled).

I wouldn't have any objection to #intext(code)# markup being used as the
standard way of indicating other kinds of code than python (in so far as
these have any place in a python doc-string); names used in such a
fragment may get recognised as python identifiers, but I don't think
that's a big deal.  So this would provide an adequate means of putting
random fragments of text into \tt mode as desired.

Is there any further need for a <TT> idiom ?

	Eddy.