On ordered Lists (was RE: [Doc-SIG] Formalizing ST)

[Peter Funk]

Hi,

I wrote:
> > I bullet item list (LaTeX itemize) seems to be enough for most cases.
[...]
> > A few days ago Guido gave a similar statement.

Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) replied:
> I'm not sure he exactly said that, but if he did, he was wrong (it *is*
> possible, he just normally uses the time machine to go back and alter
> the records after he changes his mind).

I would love to watch the time machine altering the doc-sig archive 
on python.org and make this email non existent in a parallel universe. :-)

I meant the following 2 EMails written by Guido: In
	http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2001-March/001584.html
Guido replied on an email from me:
> > I think, a description list can be dropped alltogether.  
> 
> Yes!  They are darn ugly in HTML anyway.
> 
> > At least for the time being a bullet list will be enough.  
> 
> Agreed.

Later in 
	http://mail.python.org/pipermail/doc-sig/2001-March/001595.html
he wrote as a reply to mailto:edloper%40gradient.cis.upenn.edu:
> > Well.. I'm not sure whether we'd want to do that or not.. We
> > may be happy with just using '1.' and assuming that no one will
> > start a line with a number that ends a sentence..
> 
> That was ST's the original sin.

IMO these are pretty clear statements.  

If INDENT and DETENT tokens are part of a 
upcoming EBNF docstring grammar,  I think it might be possible to
come up with rules for ordered and descriptive lists later on, which 
will not suffer from ST patterns which trigger in error.

Regards, Peter
-- 
Peter Funk, Oldenburger Str.86, D-27777 Ganderkesee, Germany, Fax:+49 4222950260
office: +49 421 20419-0 (ArtCom GmbH, Grazer Str.8, D-28359 Bremen, Germany)