Re: [Docutils-develop] New directive proposal: shell

[Benja F. <b.f...@gm...>]

Mark Nodine wrote:
> I'd like to get everyone's thoughts about a new RST directive,
> which I'll tentatively call "shell", though I'm open to other
> ideas for the name.  The proposed shell directive would be
> similar to the "include" directive except that instead of reading
> from a file that is named in the argument, it executes the
> argument in a shell.  Like "include", it would allow the
> "literal" option to disable reparsing of the output as RST.
> 
> The advantage of the proposed "shell" directive is that it
> allows parts of the document to be constructed dynamically,
> without having to run the program previously to create an
> included file.  For example, you could have a document that
> has something like
> 
>   The following files are in this directory:
> 
>   .. shell:: ls -l
>      :literal:
> 
> What do people think?

You'd want to allow this only when a special option is passed to 
docutils, so that you can simply run a ReST someone sends you through 
the converter without worrying about '.. shell:: rm ~ -rf'.

- Benja