[Doc-SIG] Formalizing StructuredText (yeh!)

[Edward D. Loper]

Ken Manheimer said:

>> Great boon that you're making tests - sounds like you're encountering bugs
>> or unwanted looseness in STNG.  We'll want to fix such.

I've got about 160 test cases so far, and expect that number to
grow.  In playing with STminus, I've often been surprised how
many of the test cases actually catch errors that I make. :)
But I'd welcome more test cases from other people..  More on that
when I post the sttest module (later today?)...

>> I'm pretty sure we will want to fix bugs and track a good base standard
>> (which is where STminus seems to be heading) in STNG.  The problem is
>> going to be finding time to do so - at least for the next few weeks, all
>> the likely suspects are inundated - but we are interested, and will
>> eventually make time to track.  (In case it needs saying, patches would be
>> welcome...-)

Unfortunately, time is always a problem.  But I'm very glad to hear
that STNG is interesting in working with us to tighten up the 
definitions of StructuredTexts..  

I don't think I'll have time to make any patches though (much less read
the STNG source code to figure out where they would even go)... I plan
to spend most of my time on STminus and the docstring PEP..

-Edward