[Doc-SIG] formalizing StructuredText

[Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)]

Edward D. Loper wrote:
> Hrm.  Ok, currently STminus says that words can contain #inlines#.

I believe that to be a mistake. I'll email you a copy of my current REs
separately (no need to burden the list) - that may clarify some things
(but unfortunately not all, as I don't *always* use URLs)

> I would *really* appreciate it if you could either run my test cases
> on STpy, or at least read through them..

I've meant to get round to this...
Anyway, I've saved sttest.py to floppy, and will take it home today.

> Ick.  This makes me cringe. :) You might have noticed,

Well, it was what I meant by my comment about not expecting you to like
something!

> but I want
> STminus to be "safe", in the sense that there should be no unexpected
> non-local dependencies.  Consider your own sentence, if people think
> they can leave out the apostrophes::
>
>    I still don't see why x*y>z *has* to go in literals,
>
> Now, we have a bold "y>z ", and a mysterious '*' after has! Clearly
> not what we want.  (When I say 'x*y>z' *has* to go in the literals,
> I mean it has to in order to be a "valid" string).

But by the rules of ST (well, at least of STNG when I looked at it, and
I'm sure by my interpretation of the Classic rules), no we don't - we
have a bold "has" and a normal font "x*y>z" - the asterisk therein
doesn't meet the criteria for starting or ending emphasis. The problem,
I guess, is that that seems equally clearly to me how it would (and,
indeed, should) work.

Tibs

--
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)      http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/
Well we're safe now....thank God we're in a bowling alley.
- Big Bob (J.T. Walsh) in "Pleasantville"
My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.)