Re: [PATCH 1/2] Docs: An initial automarkup extension for sphinx

[Markus Heiser]

Am 26.04.19 um 11:06 schrieb Jani Nikula:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019, Jonathan Corbet<corbet@xxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > Rather than fill our text files with :c:func:`function()` syntax, just do
> > the markup via a hook into the sphinx build process.  As is always the
> > case, the real problem is detecting the situations where this markup should
> > *not*  be done.
> This is basically a regex based pre-processing step in front of Sphinx,
> but it's not independent as it embeds a limited understanding/parsing of
> reStructuredText syntax. This is similar to what we do in kernel-doc the
> Perl monster, except slightly different.
>
> I understand the motivation, and I sympathize with the idea of a quick
> regex hack to silence the mob. But I fear this will lead to hard to
> solve corner cases and the same style of "impedance mismatches" we had
> with the kernel-doc/docproc/docbook Rube Goldberg machine of the past.
>
> It's more involved, but I think the better place to do this (as well as
> the kernel-doc transformations) would be in the doctree-read event,
> after the rst parsing is done. You can traverse the doctree and find the
> places which weren't special for Sphinx, and replace the plain text
> nodes in-place. I've toyed with this in the past, but alas I didn't have
> (and still don't) have the time to finish the job. There were some
> unresolved issues with e.g. replacing nodes that had syntax highlighting
> (because I wanted to make the references work also within preformatted
> blocks).
>
> If you decide to go with regex anyway, I'd at least consider pulling the
> transformations/highlights from kernel-doc the script to the Sphinx
> extension, and use the exact same transformations for stuff in source
> code comments and rst files.

FWIW mentioning: I fully agree with Jan.

  -- Markus --