Re: [Docutils-users] Re: Removing compound directive

[David G. <go...@py...>]

[Felix Wiemann]
 > Sure, the mere fact that it requires some code to implement isn't
 > enough of an argument.  But I'm reluctant to write code for a
 > feature that's almost never used, because IMO Docutils should stay
 > lean.

Too little, too late.  The feature is now part of Docutils.  Adding a
feature is painless to users, but removing one is potentially very
painful.  It would take a much stronger argument than "almost never
used" to remove a feature.

The "compound paragraph" directive was added because of user demand.
I don't imagine that demand has disappeared.  Even if you had no
response, that's not evidence of anything.

 > That's why I'm asking: Would it *really* bother anyone if the
 > compound directive was removed?  I.e., does anyone actually need it?

It would bother me.

If nobody needed it, why did we add it?  We had a long discussion on
docutils-develop (subject "Notation for continued paragraphs?",
2004-08-31 through 09-10), where we hammered out the semantics &
syntax.  You must have felt it useful at the time, since *you*
prompted its addition (2004-10-18, on docutils-develop).

Let's not waste our precious time and effort second-guessing
ourselves.  The issue was discussed, a solution was reached, and it
was implemented.  It's not broken, so let's not try to "fix" it.

 > If we removed the compound directive, plain nesting would be
 > impossible (when I wrote that text, nesting was possible anyway, it
 > was just a matter of if we use it), in the sense that there wouldn't
 > be a plain container element.  (All other elements like "topic" or
 > "bullet_list" have some visual appearance by themselves, only
 > "compound" doesn't.)
 >
 > And when I used that argument, there was not much of a difference
 > between nesting or not-nesting; but now there is (some additional
 > code).

I don't follow your argument, and I don't want to have it explained
further.  Let's drop it.

 > If you still object, I'll add a transform for the LaTeX writer which
 > flattens the compound structure.

You can do whatever you need to do for the LaTeX writer.

 > Otherwise I'd wait if anyone reports that he's really using the
 > compound directive.

I wouldn't.  It's a waste of time.

--
David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger>