Re: [PATCH] docs: Make automarkup ready for Sphinx 3.1+

[Nícolas F. R. A. Prado]

On Wed Oct 7, 2020 at 8:40 PM -03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 11:12:25PM +0000, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> > While Sphinx 2 used a single c:type role for struct, union, enum and
> > typedef, Sphinx 3 uses a specific role for each one.
> > To keep backward compatibility, detect the Sphinx version and use the
> > correct roles for that version.
> >
> > Also, Sphinx 3 is more strict with its C domain and generated warnings,
> > exposing issues in the parsing.
> > To fix the warnings, make the C regexes use ASCII, ensure the
> > expressions only match the beginning of words and skip trying to
> > cross-reference C reserved words.
>
> Thank you for doing this!
>
> I have a feature request ... could you automarkup NULL as being
> :c:macro?
> Or maybe just anything matching \<[[:upper:]_[:digit:]]*\>
> (i may have my regex syntax confused ... a word composed of any
> arrangement of upper-case, digits and underscores.)

I think what you are suggesting are two separate things.

For NULL, what you're interested in is that it appears in a monospaced font, as
if written ``NULL``, right? As I don't think a cross-reference to "the NULL
macro definition" would make much sense.

While "anything containing only upper-case, digits and underscores" would
actually be for cross-referencing to the definition of the macro symbol in
question, right?

At the moment, this automarkup script is being used only for cross-referencing,
but it is indeed a generic automarkup script, and could be used for the
formatting of NULL.  But we also can't just make every upper-case word written
in monospaced font, as that doesn't always makes sense.

So if I understood your two requests correctly, I think we could:
1. Always automatically format NULL using a literal ``.
2. Try to cross-reference every upper-case word with the macro definition using
:c:macro, but if the cross-reference doesn't exist, format it normally, since
it's just normal text (this is what we're doing for C references at the moment).

What do you think?

Thanks,
Nícolas