[Doc-SIG] Re: "docutils"

[David Goodger]

[David, in private correspondence]
>> By the way, would you mind if the DPS (or some superset
>> thereof) were to use the name "docutils"?

[Tony, replying]
> By all means.

Great.

> I don't actually think I came up with the name, anyway

Checking the complete Doc-SIG archive... The earliest reference to
"docutils" was by Fred Drake on 2 Dec 1999. The next was indeed the one you
referenced, 27 Nov 2000, from Fred in reply to your "What do we want to
*call* this thing?". It was just after I posted the first draft of
reStructuredText. The earliest reference to "docutil" is in a filename
from the gendoc package, on 23 Jan 1997.

>> I think it's a much more memorable name than "DPS", a mere
>> acronym, and it matches "distutils" nicely. Perhaps
>> "docutils" would be an umbrella package, subsuming the DPS
>> as a backend engine, and exposing a user-friendly collection
>> of tools.
> 
> I think that's a good idea.

Perhaps it's time for a new SourceForge project?

(Only half-joking here.)

> But it does mean I now don't know what to call "pydps" (since "pydoc"
> is already taken).

How about "dps.modes.pythondocstring" or just "dps.modes.docstring" (do you
think anyone will ever implement an Emacs-lisp docstring mode? :-). I think
dps.modes is where much of it will go. Parts may go into a "styles"
subpackage (the one that determines how the raw input gets transformed
stylistically).

-- 
David Goodger    goodger@users.sourceforge.net    Open-source projects:
 - Python Docstring Processing System: http://docstring.sourceforge.net
 - reStructuredText: http://structuredtext.sourceforge.net
 - The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net