From: G. M. <mi...@us...> - 2008-03-03 15:37:58
|
On 1.03.08, gr...@us... wrote: > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Alan G Isaac wrote: > > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, (CET) gr...@us... wrote: > > Why cannot > > --verbatim-env=mbox > > be an option (possibly default), and if set to anything > > else, it would mean to use that something else (verbatim, > > or lstlisting) when possible. The docs could explain this. > the question is if we should could drop the when possible. I hope we can agree to drop it from the option name (to reduce typing) and use ``--verbatim-env`` instead of ``--verbatim-env-if-possible``. > AFAIR the problem is that the writer can not distinguish between > literal and parsed-literal. AFAIR, the problem is 1. The docutils documenttree definition, allows a "rich" literate block. 2. The implementation must consider that "verbatim"-like environments clash with literal-blocks containing inline elements and a) use a fall-back non-verbatim environment (e.g. `alltt`), or b) 'flatten' the literal-block doctree node in this case. 3. The latex writer does not know, where a literate block doctree node origines from (it could be e.g. a literal block, a parsed-literal block, a doctest block as well as a (possibly parsed) sourcecode directive). Point 2. is the choice between "when-possible" or "force" variants of the "--use-verbatim" or "--verbatim-env" options. The question is: Is there a user case for overriding the parsing of a literate block in order to use a verbatim environment? My current answer would be * Not with a parsed-literal directive. * Maybe with a future sourcecode directive, as in this case it might be desirable to replace a rendering by the docutils reader by the use of the listings environment. Conclusion: For the time being, it is IMO save to *replace* the "--use-verbatim-when-possible" option with '--literal-block-env'. If the need arises, one could supplement this with either a '--rich-literal-block-env' or a '--force-verbatim' option. Günter |