From: David G. <go...@py...> - 2002-12-12 02:59:01
|
[Beni Cherniavsky] > [New to the list, rST rocks :] Welcome, and thanks! [David Ascher] >> Is there an option I don't know about to let docutils barrel >> through and never raise an exception when processing a >> document? [Beni Cherniavsky] > I don't think that skipping errors is the right approach since it > can guess wrongly what you meant. DWIMs are known to make people > sorry for using them :-). I agree, which is why the defaults are set up as they are. I do not recommend changing them permanently. Suppressing errors and warnings is treating the symptom, not the cause. In this case, the cause was a bug; suppressing the errors would just mask the bug. Posting bug reports on SourceForge or this list gives much better results. > However the cycle of running docutils and fixing the source is not > very convenient when you are in a hurry. TeX's approach of stopping > and suggesting interactive fix possibilities could be more effecient > (if the messages are less criptic ;-) but doesn't save the > corrections in any way. So how about a ``--halt=edit`` mode that > will spawn your text editor on the line where the first error > happened and after you exit the editor, it will restart from the > beginning (or maybe continue if the input file's timestamp hasn't > changed)? I think the complexity of such a feature would outweigh its usefulness. Docutils' error output ("filename:lineno: message") is already designed to be compatible with the output of many GNU tools, which have support in Emacs and probably in other tools as well. -- David Goodger <go...@py...> Open-source projects: - Python Docutils: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/ (includes reStructuredText: http://docutils.sf.net/rst.html) - The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net/ |