[Doc-SIG] Re: "docutils"

[Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)]

Moore, Paul wrote:
> One point - while I'm in favour of descriptive names, I'd
> avoid making them too long.
...
> For that matter, I find dps.parsers.restructuredtext too
> long, as well (if you use from...import it's OK, but if
> you prefer fully qualified names it's a pain).

I agree with Paul that "restructuredtext" is too long - I *do* tend to
like fully qualified names. And it's a pain at the NT command line (less
of a pain on *most* of the Unix systems I use, with file name
completion).

> I'd prefer dps.parsers.rest (or rst, I'll keep out of that
> fight...)

Erm, amiable amusement rather than fight?

.. _fig
Actually, in the context of a module (particularly if DPS and reST
become subpackages of a docutils package) I couldn't give a fig whether
it is "rest" or "rst" - I like to describe the format *itself* as
"reST", but that's a different issue (I can cope with two different
abbreviations!). (well, tell a lie, I'd *prefer* "rest", but I'd not
fight for it.)

Could I respectfully suggest a radical restructuring, sooner rather than
later (since at the moment we have the number of users under close
control!):

* overall package "docutils"
* subpackage "docutils.dps"
* subpackage "docutils.rest" or "docutils.rst" (see fig_ above)

This *may* answer the question of where to put the "Python source code"
parsing stuff later on - it would naturally go into (for instance)
"docutils.py<some-mnemonic>" (pyreport? pyinfo? pyman? pysillywalk?)

Tibs

--
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)      http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/
.. "equal" really means "in some sense the same, but maybe not
.. the sense you were hoping for", or, more succinctly, "is
.. confused with". (Gordon McMillan, Python list, Apr 1998)
My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.)

 But
> it's possibly too late for that.
>
> Paul.
>