[Doc-SIG] field syntax (was re: lists & blank lines)

[Edward D. Loper]

> > >     1. I like the number e.  This number is approximately equal to
> > >     2.71828182846.  But it's irrational, so that's an

> (a) the label isn't of a standard pattern the same as the first item
>     ("\d+\. "; no space after the "2."; I don't think we should allow
>     floating-point enumerators, hm? :);
> (b) the label isn't sequential with the first item's label
>     (1 + 1 != 2.718...);
> (c) if we permit nested lists through compound enumerators, sublists must
>     start with "1" or equivalent, and this one doesn't.
> 
> Convinced? If not, why *would* the parser pass the second line through
> unchallenged? Please show your work ;-)

Sorry, you're right, I wasn't being explicit enough.  I was
assuming that ordered list bullets were "(\d+\.)+", because that's
what we decided last time around the loop..  The idea was that
people might want to say "2.1." or something.  But I don't have
any problem with restricting ordered list bullets to "\d+\.".

But the problem still exists, albeit in a more rare form:

  1. I like the number 3.  It comes right after the number
  2.  It comes right before the number 4.

But I think that really we agree.  I'm just saying that *in 
principle* it's ambiguous to a reader, but that any sane reader
would complain about it anyway..  so we can ignore that
ambiguity.

On a side note, I'm not sure whether we should enforce (b) and
(c).  I guess my gut instinct would be to generate a warning
for them, but not an error..  They prevent people from having
an enumerated list that's intersperced with text (e.g., 
that's normally done in math papers with the math formulas..).
I guess that's not a great loss, though, in the context of
writing docstrings.

-Edward