From: David G. <go...@py...> - 2007-06-07 14:58:26
|
On 6/5/07, Alan G Isaac <ai...@am...> wrote: > Suppose I have a literal inclusion that produces the > document tree node > <literal_block source="myfile.py" xml:space="preserve"> > Would you find it reasonable for the LaTeX writer to simply > note the source-file extension and based on this to use > the lstlistings environment, setting the language to Python? Seems too implicit to me. What if I don't want syntax highlighting (or whatever the lstlistings environment does)? If I want that functionality, I'll ask for it explicitly (e.g. with a code-block directive or a listing directive). What *does* the lstlistings environment do, anyhow? But I really don't care what happens at the back end. My concern is with getting the front end right, so all back ends are on a level and functional playing field. > Suppose you find that too implicit. Then what class > convention would be appropriate? > How about listing-<language>, as in > <literal_block classes="listing-python" source="myfile.py" xml:space="preserve"> > Is that a plausible approach? That would be plausible output for the following hypothetical input: .. listing:: python :file: myfile.py I don't know exactly what a "listing" is though. But these are implementation details, not really appropriate for the -users list. (IOW, stop bikeshedding please.) -- David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger> |