John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024, 11:07 AM Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 8:03 AM Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Change get_doc_indented() to preserve indentation on all subsequent text
>> >> > lines, and create a compatibility dedent() function for qapidoc.py to
>> >> > remove that indentation. This is being done for the benefit of a new
>> >>
>> >> Suggest "remove indentation the same way get_doc_indented() did."
>> >>
>> >
>> > Aight.
>> >
>> >
>> >> > qapidoc generator which requires that indentation in argument and
>> >> > features sections are preserved.
>> >> >
>> >> > Prior to this patch, a section like this:
>> >> >
>> >> > ```
>> >> > @name: lorem ipsum
>> >> > dolor sit amet
>> >> > consectetur adipiscing elit
>> >> > ```
>> >> >
>> >> > would have its body text be parsed as:
>> >>
>> >> Suggest "parsed into".
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why? (I mean, I'll do it, but I don't see the semantic difference
>> > personally)
>> >
>>
>> "Parse as <language>" vs. "Parse into <representation>".
>>
>> >> > (first and final newline only for presentation)
>> >> >
>> >> > ```
>> >> > lorem ipsum
>> >> > dolor sit amet
>> >> > consectetur adipiscing elit
>> >> > ```
>> >> >
>> >> > We want to preserve the indentation for even the first body line so that
>> >> > the entire block can be parsed directly as rST. This patch would now
>> >> > parse that segment as:
>> >>
>> >> If you change "parsed as" to "parsed into" above, then do it here, too.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > ```
>> >> > lorem ipsum
>> >> > dolor sit amet
>> >> > consectetur adipiscing elit
>> >> > ```
>> >> >
>> >> > This is helpful for formatting arguments and features as field lists in
>> >> > rST, where the new generator will format this information as:
>> >> >
>> >> > ```
>> >> > :arg type name: lorem ipsum
>> >> > dolor sit amet
>> >> > consectetur apidiscing elit
>> >> > ```
>> >> >
>> >> > ...and can be formed by the simple concatenation of the field list
>> >> > construct and the body text. The indents help preserve the continuation
>> >> > of a block-level element, and further allow the use of additional rST
>> >> > block-level constructs such as code blocks, lists, and other such
>> >> > markup. Avoiding reflowing the text conditionally also helps preserve
>> >> > source line context for better rST error reporting from sphinx through
>> >> > generated source, too.
>> >>
>> >> What do you mean by "reflowing"?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Poorly phrased, was thinking about emacs too much. I mean munging the text
>> > post-hoc for the doc generator such that newlines are added or removed in
>> > the process of re-formatting text to get the proper indentation for the new
>> > rST form.
>> >
>> > In prototyping, this got messy very quickly and was difficult to correlate
>> > source line numbers across the transformation.
>> >
>> > It was easier to just not munge the text at all instead of munging it and
>> > then un-munging it.
>> >
>> > (semantic satiation: munge munge munge munge.)
>>
>> Is this about a possible alternative solution you explored? Keeping
>> .get_doc_indented() as is, and then try to undo its damage?
>>
>
> precisamente. That solution was categorically worse.
Since .get_doc_indented() removes N spaces of indentation, we'd want to
add back N spaces of indentation. But we can't know N, so I guess we'd
make do with an arbitrary number. Where would reflowing come it?
I'd like you to express more clearly that you're talking about an
alternative you rejected. Perhaps like this:
block-level constructs such as code blocks, lists, and other such
markup.
The alternative would be to somehow undo .get_doc_indented()'s
indentation changes in the new generator. Much messier.
Feel free to add more detail to the last paragraph.
Eh, I just deleted it. I recall running into troubles but I can't articulate the precise conditions because as you point out, it's a doomed strategy for other reasons - you can't reconstruct the proper indentation.
This patch is still the correct way to go, so I don't have to explain my failures at length in the commit message ... I just like giving people clues for *why* I decided to implement things a certain way, because I often find that more instructive than the "how". In this case, the "why" is probably more properly summarized as "it's a total shitshow in that direction, trust me"
--js