Re: [PATCH v6 18/23] docs: add Rust documentation

[Miguel Ojeda]

Hi Akira,

On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:02 AM Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think you agreed splitting SVG part into its own patch with
> a proper copying info, etc.  Let me see...  So, here is the link:

Yes, sorry, will do (in fact, it should have been there in v5 too).

By the way, the Linux SVG logo (used to make the one here) is pending
in the linux-doc ML.

> I might have missed v5 of this patch series.
> That might be because v5's 15/20 was not accepted by linux-doc's
> lore archive (maybe) due to its size despite it had Cc: linux-doc.
> v6's 18/23 was also rejected.

Yes, a few patches get rejected in several lists. We were told this
was fine as long as LKML gets them (the cover letter has the lists in
Cc).

> I have some alternative ideas for table formatting in ReST.

I was following the LLVM one, but it makes sense to use the other ones
where possible. I can send a patch for that one too.

> So here are a couple of alternative ways to represent the table
>
> * ASCII-art format:
> * Literal block format:

Thanks for taking the time to format the examples, it is useful :)

> As you see, those inline-literal markers of ``xxxx``, which are
> distracting when the .rst file is read as plain-text, are not
> necessary in the literal-block approach.  And you can directly

I agree, it can be better (it is one reason I find Markdown a bit more
readable since it uses a single backquote for that instead of two).

> In my opinion, the literal-block approach should be the most
> reasonable choice here. Of course its your call which one
> to choose.

Yeah, that sounds reasonable. I will take a look.

Thanks for the review!

Cheers,
Miguel