Re: [Docutils-users] code-block directive

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

On 6/1/07, Alan G Isaac <ai...@am...> wrote:
> Two user requests as you go this direction:
>
> 1. support this for the ``include`` directive.  E.g., ::
>
>     .. include:: mycode.py
>        :code-block: python

It would be better for a "code-block" directive to have a "file"
option (like the "raw" directive):

    .. code-block:: python
       :file: mycode.py

> 2. Allow docutils parsing for syntax highlighting to be
>    turned off.

No.  There's no reason for it.

>    (Yes, this is another attempt to get a literal block
>    in a code-block element,

There is no such thing as a code-block element, and there won't be.

>    but it seems like a very
>    reasonable way given the project here, no?)

No.

>     The functionality would follow
>     from writers knowing that they have a code block that
>     has not been parsed for syntax by Docutils.  Writers can
>     then handle this as they wish.

Writers are part of Docutils.  Your terminology is confused.

> Additionally, one question.  Will Docutils "choke" on
> unknown languages, or will it allow them but not parse
> for syntax?  I hope the latter.

I agree with Guenter: a warning or info system message should be
generated, and an unparsed literal_block should result.

> Also, in response to a note
> I got off-list, please note that "apparently wrote" is in no
> sense derogatory; it is a simple "post-modern" joke, if you
> will,

Then perhaps add a smiley.  Implicit jokes don't work well in email.
Small annoyances can easily become offensive.

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