From: M. <seb...@fl...> - 2004-04-28 05:20:45
|
Hi, I might be wrong, but I see that inline-literal and literal-blocks are converted in \texttt{}. And I don't see how to get \verb|| instead. Or \begin{verbatim}\end{verbatim} if needed. Is there a chance we could use instead the verbatim package in those cases? This would be more consistent with the "structured" criteria of docutils, since we would define a "content" not a "shape". Moreover, \texttt is sometime problematic: for LaTeX users, try \texttt{--}, and, at least in T1 fontenc, we'll get a "-" instead of two "--". If we had \verb|--|, no problem. I am quite an end-user of the reST / docutils tools, so I am not quite able to search for the solution myself -- and I was not able to be completely sure that there is not already a solution provided before posting here. Cheers, -- Sébastien |
From: <gr...@us...> - 2004-04-28 14:30:44
|
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, [iso-8859-1] S=E9bastien Mengin wrote: > I might be wrong, but I see that inline-literal and literal-blocks are > converted in \texttt{}. And I don't see how to get \verb|| instead. Or > \begin{verbatim}\end{verbatim} if needed. you cant now. the problem is that, in docutils one could also have bold inside a literal-block. > Is there a chance we could use instead the verbatim package in those > cases? This would be more consistent with the "structured" criteria of > docutils, since we would define a "content" not a "shape". Moreover, > \texttt is sometime problematic: for LaTeX users, try \texttt{--}, and, > at least in T1 fontenc, we'll get a "-" instead of two "--". If we had > \verb|--|, no problem. your right, i can offer two ways 1. a switch to use verbatim for literal blocks, bold no longer works then 2. you can send me the failing document, and i see to it. the "--" should already work, underlines are a hassle. do you have any other problem ? > I am quite an end-user of the reST / docutils tools, so I am not quite > able to search for the solution myself -- and I was not able to be > completely sure that there is not already a solution provided before > posting here. cheers --=20 BINGO: aggressively priced next-generation critical mass |
From: M. <seb...@fl...> - 2004-04-28 14:57:03
|
Le mer 28 avr 04 à 16:29, gr...@us... a écrit: > > Is there a chance we could use instead the verbatim package in those > > cases? This would be more consistent with the "structured" criteria of > > docutils, since we would define a "content" not a "shape". Moreover, > > \texttt is sometime problematic: for LaTeX users, try \texttt{--}, and, > > at least in T1 fontenc, we'll get a "-" instead of two "--". If we had > > \verb|--|, no problem. > > your right, i can offer two ways > > 1. a switch to use verbatim for literal blocks, bold no longer works then This would be great. I don't use bold in literal blocks. > do you have any other problem ? Not at the moment, thanks for your help. Cheers, -- Sébastien |
From: M. <seb...@fl...> - 2004-05-05 00:17:12
|
Le mer 28 avr 04 à 10:56, Sébastien Mengin a écrit: > > > Is there a chance we could use instead the verbatim package in those > > > cases? This would be more consistent with the "structured" criteria of > > > docutils, since we would define a "content" not a "shape". Moreover, > > > \texttt is sometime problematic: for LaTeX users, try \texttt{--}, and, > > > at least in T1 fontenc, we'll get a "-" instead of two "--". If we had > > > \verb|--|, no problem. > > > > your right, i can offer two ways > > > > 1. a switch to use verbatim for literal blocks, bold no longer works then > > This would be great. I don't use bold in literal blocks. I may have missed the answer to this post, but I don't think so. As I have no idea on how to make "a switch to use verbatim for literal blocks", Grubert, can you just give me a hint so that I can seek it? Thanks in advance! :-) > > do you have any other problem ? > > Not at the moment, thanks for your help. > > Cheers, > > -- > Sébastien > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g > Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. > Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Docutils-users mailing list > Doc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/docutils-users > > -- Sébastien |
From: <gr...@us...> - 2004-05-05 10:56:15
|
On Tue, 4 May 2004, [iso-8859-1] S=E9bastien Mengin wrote: > Le mer 28 avr 04 =E0 10:56, S=E9bastien Mengin a =E9crit: > > > > Is there a chance we could use instead the verbatim package in thos= e > > > > cases? This would be more consistent with the "structured" criteria= of > > > > docutils, since we would define a "content" not a "shape". Moreover= , > > > > \texttt is sometime problematic: for LaTeX users, try \texttt{--}, = and, > > > > at least in T1 fontenc, we'll get a "-" instead of two "--". If we = had > > > > \verb|--|, no problem. > > > > > > your right, i can offer two ways > > > > > > 1. a switch to use verbatim for literal blocks, bold no longer works = then > > > > This would be great. I don't use bold in literal blocks. > > I may have missed the answer to this post, but I don't think so. As I > have no idea on how to make "a switch to use verbatim for literal > blocks", Grubert, can you just give me a hint so that I can seek it? i took the patch from lele, it is commited :: rst2latex --help the last option. > Thanks in advance! :-) thanks to lele --=20 BINGO: Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes. |
From: <gr...@us...> - 2004-05-05 11:00:14
|
On Tue, 4 May 2004, [iso-8859-1] S=E9bastien Mengin wrote: > I may have missed the answer to this post, but I don't think so. As I > have no idea on how to make "a switch to use verbatim for literal > blocks", Grubert, can you just give me a hint so that I can seek it? > > Thanks in advance! :-) and it fails miserably on ``---``, sorry. cheers --=20 BINGO: Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes. |
From: <eng...@ss...> - 2004-05-05 11:16:45
|
On Wed, 5 May 2004 gr...@us... wrote: > On Tue, 4 May 2004, [iso-8859-1] S=E9bastien Mengin wrote: > > > I may have missed the answer to this post, but I don't think so. As I > > have no idea on how to make "a switch to use verbatim for literal > > blocks", Grubert, can you just give me a hint so that I can seek it? > > > > Thanks in advance! :-) > > and it fails miserably on ``---``, sorry. this is translated to ``\texttt{---}`` and latex does NOT make it an mdash but three dashes. so it works. cheers --=20 BINGO: Das muessen wir noch kommunizieren --- Engelbert Gruber -------+ SSG Fintl,Gruber,Lassnig / A6170 Zirl Innweg 5b / Tel. ++43-5238-93535 ---+ |