[Python-Dev] PEP 287: reStructuredText Standard Docstring Format

2002年4月02日 00:28:17 -0500

Here's a serious proposal, safe to post now that April Fool's is over.
Please read & comment.
-- 
David Goodger goodger@users.sourceforge.net Open-source projects:
 - Python Docstring Processing System: http://docstring.sourceforge.net
 - reStructuredText: http://structuredtext.sourceforge.net
 - The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sourceforge.net
PEP: 287
Title: reStructuredText Standard Docstring Format
Version: $Revision: 1.3 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2002年04月02日 03:50:38 $
Author: goodger@users.sourceforge.net (David Goodger)
Discussions-To: doc-sig@python.org
Status: Draft
Type: Informational
Created: 25-Mar-2002
Post-History: 02-Apr-2002
Replaces: 216
Abstract
 When plaintext hasn't been expressive enough for inline
 documentation, Python programmers have sought out a format for
 docstrings. This PEP proposes that the reStructuredText markup
 [1]_ be adopted as the standard markup format for structured
 plaintext documentation in Python docstrings, and for PEPs and
 ancillary documents as well. reStructuredText is a rich and
 extensible yet easy-to-read, what-you-see-is-what-you-get
 plaintext markup syntax.
 Only the low-level syntax of docstrings is addressed here. This
 PEP is not concerned with docstring semantics or processing at
 all. Nor is it an attempt to deprecate pure plaintext docstrings,
 which are always going to be legitimate. The reStructuredText
 markup is an alternative for those who want more expressive
 docstrings.
Benefits
 Programmers are by nature a lazy breed. We reuse code with
 functions, classes, modules, and subsystems. Through its
 docstring syntax, Python allows us to document our code from
 within. The "holy grail" of the Python Documentation Special
 Interest Group (Doc-SIG) [2]_ has been a markup syntax and toolset
 to allow auto-documentation, where the docstrings of Python
 systems can be extracted in context and processed into useful,
 high-quality documentation for multiple purposes.
 The proposed format (reStructuredText) is entirely readable in
 plaintext format, and many of the markup forms match common usage
 (e.g., ``*emphasis*``), so it reads quite naturally. Yet it is
 rich enough to produce complex documents, and extensible so that
 there are few limits.
 The reStructuredText parser is available now. The Docutils
 project is at the point where standalone reStructuredText
 documents can be converted to HTML; other output format writers
 will become available over time. Work is progressing on a Python
 source "Reader" which will implement auto-documentation. Authors
 of existing auto-documentation tools are encouraged to integrate
 the reStructuredText parser into their projects, or better yet, to
 join forces to produce a world-class toolset for the Python
 standard library.
 Tools will become available in the near future, which will allow
 programmers to generate HTML for online help, XML for multiple
 purposes, and perhaps eventually PDF/DocBook/LaTeX for printed
 documentation, essentially "for free" from the existing
 docstrings. The adoption of a standard will, at the very least,
 benefit docstring processing tools by preventing further
 "reinventing the wheel".
 Eventually PyDoc, the one existing standard auto-documentation
 tool, could have reStructuredText support added. In the interim
 it will have no problem with reStructuredText markup, since it
 treats all docstrings as plaintext.
Goals
 These are the generally accepted goals for a docstring format, as
 discussed in the Doc-SIG:
 1. It must be readable in source form by the casual observer.
 2. It must be easy to type with any standard text editor.
 3. It must not need to contain information which can be deduced
 from parsing the module.
 4. It must contain sufficient information (structure) so it can be
 converted to any reasonable markup format.
 5. It must be possible to write a module's entire documentation in
 docstrings, without feeling hampered by the markup language.
 reStructuredText meets and exceeds all of these goals, and sets
 its own goals as well, even more stringent. See "Features" below.
 The goals of this PEP are as follows:
 1. To establish reStructuredText as a standard docstring format by
 attaining "accepted" status (Python community consensus; BDFL
 pronouncement). Once reStructuredText is a Python standard,
 effort can be focused on tools instead of arguing for a
 standard. Python needs a standard set of documentation tools.
 2. To address any related concerns raised by the Python community.
 3. To encourage community support. As long as multiple competing
 markups are out there, the development community remains
 fractured. Once a standard exists, people will start to use
 it, and momentum will inevitably gather.
 4. To consolidate efforts from related auto-documentation
 projects. It is hoped that interested developers will join
 forces and work on a joint/merged/common implementation.
 5. To adopt reStructuredText as the standard markup for PEPs. One
 or both of the following strategies may be applied:
 a) Keep the existing PEP section structure constructs (one-line
 section headers, indented body text). Subsections can
 either be forbidden or supported with underlined headers in
 the indented body text.
 b) Replace the PEP section structure constructs with the
 reStructuredText syntax. Section headers will require
 underlines, subsections will be supported out of the box,
 and body text need not be indented (except for block
 quotes).
 Support for RFC 2822 headers will be added to the
 reStructuredText parser (unambiguous given a specific context:
 the first contiguous block of a PEP document). It may be
 desired to concretely specify what over/underline styles are
 allowed for PEP section headers, for uniformity.
 6. To adopt reStructuredText as the standard markup for
 README-type files and other standalone documents in the Python
 distribution.
Rationale
 The lack of a standard syntax for docstrings has hampered the
 development of standard tools for extracting and converting
 docstrings into documentation in standard formats (e.g., HTML,
 DocBook, TeX). There have been a number of proposed markup
 formats and variations, and many tools tied to these proposals,
 but without a standard docstring format they have failed to gain a
 strong following and/or floundered half-finished.
 Throughout the existence of the Doc-SIG, consensus on a single
 standard docstring format has never been reached. A lightweight,
 implicit markup has been sought, for the following reasons (among
 others):
 1. Docstrings written within Python code are available from within
 the interactive interpreter, and can be 'print'ed. Thus the
 use of plaintext for easy readability.
 2. Programmers want to add structure to their docstrings, without
 sacrificing raw docstring readability. Unadorned plaintext
 cannot be transformed ('up-translated') into useful structured
 formats.
 3. Explicit markup (like XML or TeX) is widely considered
 unreadable by the uninitiated.
 4. Implicit markup is aesthetically compatible with the clean and
 minimalist Python syntax.
 Proposed alternatives have included:
 - XML [3]_, SGML [4]_, DocBook [5]_, HTML [6]_, XHTML [7]_
 XML and SGML are explicit, well-formed meta-languages suitable
 for all kinds of documentation. XML is a variant of SGML. They
 are best used behind the scenes, because they are verbose,
 difficult to type, and too cluttered to read comfortably as
 source. DocBook, HTML, and XHTML are all applications of SGML
 and/or XML, and all share the same basic syntax and the same
 shortcomings.
 - TeX [8]_
 TeX is similar to XML/SGML in that it's explicit, not very easy
 to write, and not easy for the uninitiated to read.
 - Perl POD [9]_
 Most Perl modules are documented in a format called POD -- Plain
 Old Documentation. This is an easy-to-type, very low level
 format with strong integration with the Perl parser. Many tools
 exist to turn POD documentation into other formats: info, HTML
 and man pages, among others. However, the POD syntax takes
 after Perl itself in terms of readability.
 - JavaDoc [10]_
 Special comments before Java classes and functions serve to
 document the code. A program to extract these, and turn them
 into HTML documentation is called javadoc, and is part of the
 standard Java distribution. However, the only output format
 that is supported is HTML, and JavaDoc has a very intimate
 relationship with HTML, using HTML tags for most markup. Thus
 it shares the readability problems of HTML.
 - Setext [11]_, StructuredText [12]_
 Early on, variants of Setext (Structure Enhanced Text),
 including Zope Corp's StructuredText, were proposed for Python
 docstring formatting. Hereafter these variants will
 collectively be call 'STexts'. STexts have the advantage of
 being easy to read without special knowledge, and relatively
 easy to write.
 Although used by some (including in most existing Python
 auto-documentation tools), until now STexts have failed to
 become standard because:
 - STexts have been incomplete. Lacking "essential" constructs
 that people want to use in their docstrings, STexts are
 rendered less than ideal. Note that these "essential"
 constructs are not universal; everyone has their own
 requirements.
 - STexts have been sometimes surprising. Bits of text are
 unexpectedly interpreted as being marked up, leading to user
 frustration.
 - SText implementations have been buggy.
 - Most STexts have have had no formal specification except for
 the implementation itself. A buggy implementation meant a
 buggy spec, and vice-versa.
 - There has been no mechanism to get around the SText markup
 rules when a markup character is used in a non-markup context.
 Proponents of implicit STexts have vigorously opposed proposals
 for explicit markup (XML, HTML, TeX, POD, etc.), and the debates
 have continued off and on since 1996 or earlier.
 reStructuredText is a complete revision and reinterpretation of
 the SText idea, addressing all of the problems listed above.
Features
 Rather than repeating or summarizing the extensive
 reStructuredText spec, please read the originals available from
 http://structuredtext.sourceforge.net/spec/ (.txt & .html files).
 Reading the documents in following order is recommended:
 - An Introduction to reStructuredText [13]_
 - Problems With StructuredText [14]_ (optional for those who have
 used StructuredText; it explains many markup decisions made)
 - reStructuredText Markup Specification [15]_
 - A Record of reStructuredText Syntax Alternatives [16]_ (explains
 markup decisions made independently of StructuredText)
 - reStructuredText Directives [17]_
 There is also a "Quick reStructuredText" user reference [18]_.
 A summary of features addressing often-raised docstring markup
 concerns follows:
 - A markup escaping mechanism.
 Backslashes (``\``) are used to escape markup characters when
 needed for non-markup purposes. However, the inline markup
 recognition rules have been constructed in order to minimize the
 need for backslash-escapes. For example, although asterisks are
 used for *emphasis*, in non-markup contexts such as "*" or "(*)"
 or "x * y", the asterisks are not interpreted as markup and are
 left unchanged. For many non-markup uses of backslashes (e.g.,
 describing regular expressions), inline literals or literal
 blocks are applicable; see the next item.
 - Markup to include Python source code and Python interactive
 sessions: inline literals, literal blocks, and doctest blocks.
 Inline literals use ``double-backquotes`` to indicate program
 I/O or code snippets. No markup interpretation (including
 backslash-escape [``\``] interpretation) is done within inline
 literals.
 Literal blocks (block-level literal text, such as code excerpts
 or ASCII graphics) are indented, and indicated with a
 double-colon ("::") at the end of the preceding paragraph (right
 here -->)::
 if literal_block:
 text = 'is left as-is'
 spaces_and_linebreaks = 'are preserved'
 markup_processing = None
 Doctest blocks begin with ">>> " and end with a blank line.
 Neither indentation nor literal block double-colons are
 required. For example::
 Here's a doctest block:
 >>> print 'Python-specific usage examples; begun with ">>>"'
 Python-specific usage examples; begun with ">>>"
 >>> print '(cut and pasted from interactive sessions)'
 (cut and pasted from interactive sessions)
 - Markup that isolates a Python identifier: interpreted text.
 Text enclosed in single backquotes is recognized as "interpreted
 text", whose interpretation is application-dependent. In the
 context of a Python docstring, the default interpretation of
 interpreted text is as Python identifiers. The text will be
 marked up with a hyperlink connected to the documentation for
 the identifier given. Lookup rules are the same as in Python
 itself: LGB namespace lookups (local, global, builtin). The
 "role" of the interpreted text (identifying a class, module,
 function, etc.) is determined implicitly from the namespace
 lookup. For example::
 class Keeper(Storer):
 """
 Keep data fresher longer.
 Extend `Storer`. Class attribute `instances` keeps track
 of the number of `Keeper` objects instantiated.
 """
 instances = 0
 """How many `Keeper` objects are there?"""
 def __init__(self):
 """
 Extend `Storer.__init__()` to keep track of
 instances. Keep count in `self.instances` and data
 in `self.data`.
 """
 Storer.__init__(self)
 self.instances += 1
 self.data = []
 """Store data in a list, most recent last."""
 def storedata(self, data):
 """
 Extend `Storer.storedata()`; append new `data` to a
 list (in `self.data`).
 """
 self.data = data
 Each piece of interpreted text is looked up according to the
 local namespace of the block containing its docstring.
 - Markup that isolates a Python identifier and specifies its type:
 interpreted text with roles.
 Although the Python source context reader is designed not to
 require explicit roles, they may be used. To classify
 identifiers explicitly, the role is given along with the
 identifier in either prefix or suffix form::
 Use :method:`Keeper.storedata` to store the object's data in
 `Keeper.data`:instance_attribute:.
 The syntax chosen for roles is verbose, but necessarily so (if
 anyone has a better alternative, please post it to the Doc-SIG).
 The intention of the markup is that there should be little need
 to use explicit roles; their use is to be kept to an absolute
 minimum.
 - Markup for "tagged lists" or "label lists": field lists.
 Field lists represent a mapping from field name to field body.
 These are mostly used for extension syntax, such as
 "bibliographic field lists" (representing document metadata such
 as author, date, and version) and extension attributes for
 directives (see below). They may be used to implement docstring
 semantics, such as identifying parameters, exceptions raised,
 etc.; such usage is beyond the scope of this PEP.
 A modified RFC 2822 syntax is used, with a colon *before* as
 well as *after* the field name. Field bodies are more versatile
 as well; they may contain multiple field bodies (even nested
 field lists). For example::
 :Date: 2002年03月22日
 :Version: 1
 :Authors:
 - Me
 - Myself
 - I
 Standard RFC 2822 header syntax cannot be used for this
 construct because it is ambiguous. A word followed by a colon
 at the beginning of a line is common in written text.
 - Markup extensibility: directives and substitutions.
 Directives are used as an extension mechanism for
 reStructuredText, a way of adding support for new block-level
 constructs without adding new syntax. Directives for images,
 admonitions (note, caution, etc.), and tables of contents
 generation (among others) have been implemented. For example,
 here's how to place an image::
 .. image:: mylogo.png
 Substitution definitions allow the power and flexibility of
 block-level directives to be shared by inline text. For
 example::
 The |biohazard| symbol must be used on containers used to
 dispose of medical waste.
 .. |biohazard| image:: biohazard.png
 - Section structure markup.
 Section headers in reStructuredText use adornment via underlines
 (and possibly overlines) rather than indentation. For example::
 This is a Section Title
 =======================
 This is a Subsection Title
 --------------------------
 This paragraph is in the subsection.
 This is Another Section Title
 =============================
 This paragraph is in the second section.
Questions & Answers
 Q1: Is reStructuredText rich enough?
 A1: Yes, it is for most people. If it lacks some construct that
 is required for a specific application, it can be added via
 the directive mechanism. If a common construct has been
 overlooked and a suitably readable syntax can be found, it can
 be added to the specification and parser.
 Q2: Is reStructuredText *too* rich?
 A2: For specific applications or individuals, perhaps. In
 general, no.
 Since the very beginning, whenever a markup syntax has been
 proposed on the Doc-SIG, someone has complained about the lack
 of support for some construct or other. The reply was often
 something like, "These are docstrings we're talking about, and
 docstrings shouldn't have complex markup." The problem is
 that a construct that seems superfluous to one person may be
 absolutely essential to another.
 reStructuredText takes the opposite approach: it provides a
 rich set of implicit markup constructs (plus a generic
 extension mechanism for explicit markup), allowing for all
 kinds of documents. If the set of constructs is too rich for
 a particular application, the unused constructs can either be
 removed from the parser (via application-specific overrides)
 or simply omitted by convention.
 Q3: Why not use indentation for section structure, like
 StructuredText does? Isn't it more "Pythonic"?
 A3: Guido van Rossum wrote the following in a 2001年06月13日 Doc-SIG
 post:
 I still think that using indentation to indicate
 sectioning is wrong. If you look at how real books and
 other print publications are laid out, you'll notice that
 indentation is used frequently, but mostly at the
 intra-section level. Indentation can be used to offset
 lists, tables, quotations, examples, and the like. (The
 argument that docstrings are different because they are
 input for a text formatter is wrong: the whole point is
 that they are also readable without processing.)
 I reject the argument that using indentation is Pythonic:
 text is not code, and different traditions and conventions
 hold. People have been presenting text for readability
 for over 30 centuries. Let's not innovate needlessly.
 See "Section Structure via Indentation" in "Problems With
 StructuredText" [14]_ for further elaboration.
 Q4: Why use reStructuredText for PEPs? What's wrong with the
 existing standard?
 A4: The existing standard for PEPs is very limited in terms of
 general expressibility, and referencing is especially lacking
 for such a reference-rich document type. PEPs are currently
 converted into HTML, but the results (mostly monospaced text)
 are less than attractive, and most of the value-added
 potential of HTML is untapped.
 Making reStructuredText the standard markup for PEPs will
 enable much richer expression, including support for section
 structure, inline markup, graphics, and tables. In several
 PEPs there are ASCII graphics diagrams, which are all that
 plaintext documents can support. Since PEPs are made
 available in HTML form, the ability to include proper diagrams
 would be immediately useful.
 Current PEP practices allow for reference markers in the form
 "[1]" in the text, and the footnotes/references themselves are
 listed in a section toward the end of the document. There is
 currently no hyperlinking between the reference marker and the
 footnote/reference itself (it would be possible to add this to
 pep2html.py, but the "markup" as it stands is ambiguous and
 mistakes would be inevitable). A PEP with many references
 (such as this one ;-) requires a lot of flipping back and
 forth. When revising a PEP, often new references are added or
 unused references deleted. It is painful to renumber the
 references, since it has to be done in two places and can have
 a cascading effect (insert a single new reference 1, and every
 other reference has to be renumbered; always adding new
 references to the end is suboptimal). It is easy for
 references to go out of sync.
 PEPs use references for two purposes: simple URL references
 and footnotes. reStructuredText differentiates between the
 two. A PEP might contain references like this::
 Abstract
 This PEP proposes adding frungible doodads [1] to the
 core. It extends PEP 9876 [2] via the BCA [3]
 mechanism.
 References and Footnotes
 [1] http://www.example.org/
 [2] PEP 9876, Let's Hope We Never Get Here
 http://www.python.org/peps/pep-9876.html
 [3] "Bogus Complexity Addition"
 Reference 1 is a simple URL reference. Reference 2 is a
 footnote containing text and a URL. Reference 3 is a footnote
 containing text only. Rewritten using reStructuredText, this
 PEP could look like this::
 Abstract
 ========
 This PEP proposes adding `frungible doodads`_ to the
 core. It extends PEP 9876 [#pep9876]_ via the BCA [#]_
 mechanism.
 .. _frungible doodads: http://www.example.org/
 .. [#pep9876] `PEP 9876`__, Let's Hope We Never Get Here
 __ http://www.python.org/peps/pep-9876.html
 .. [#] "Bogus Complexity Addition"
 URLs and footnotes can be defined close to their references if
 desired, making them easier to read in the source text, and
 making the PEPs easier to revise. The "References and
 Footnotes" section can be auto-generated with a document tree
 transform. Footnotes from throughout the PEP would be
 gathered and displayed under a standard header. If URL
 references should likewise be written out explicitly (in
 citation form), another tree transform could be used.
 URL references can be named ("frungible doodads"), and can be
 referenced from multiple places in the document without
 additional definitions. When converted to HTML, references
 will be replaced with inline hyperlinks (HTML <A> tags). The
 two footnotes are automatically numbered, so they will always
 stay in sync. The first footnote also contains an internal
 reference name, "pep9876", so it's easier to see the
 connection between reference and footnote in the source text.
 Named footnotes can be referenced multiple times, maintaining
 consistent numbering.
 The "#pep9876" footnote could also be written in the form of a
 citation::
 It extends PEP 9876 [PEP9876]_ ...
 .. [PEP9876] `PEP 9876`_, Let's Hope We Never Get Here
 Footnotes are numbered, whereas citations use text for their
 references.
 Q5: Wouldn't it be better to keep the docstring and PEP proposals
 separate?
 A5: The PEP markup proposal may be removed if it is deemed that
 there is no need for PEP markup, or it could be made into a
 separate PEP. If accepted, PEP 1, PEP Purpose and Guidelines
 [19]_, and PEP 9, Sample PEP Template [20]_ will be updated.
 It seems natural to adopt a single consistent markup standard
 for all uses of structured plaintext in Python, and to propose
 it all in one place.
 Q6: The existing pep2html.py script converts the existing PEP
 format to HTML. How will the new-format PEPs be converted to
 HTML?
 A6: One of the deliverables of the Docutils project [21]_ will be
 a new version of pep2html.py with integrated reStructuredText
 parsing. The Docutils project will support PEPs with a "PEP
 Reader" component, including all functionality currently in
 pep2html.py (auto-recognition of PEP & RFC references).
 Q7: Who's going to convert the existing PEPs to reStructuredText?
 A7: A call for volunteers will be put out to the Doc-SIG and
 greater Python communities. If insufficient volunteers are
 forthcoming, I (David Goodger) will convert the documents
 myself, perhaps with some level of automation. A transitional
 system whereby both old and new standards can coexist will be
 easy to implement (and I pledge to implement it if necessary).
 Q8: Why use reStructuredText for README and other ancillary files?
 A8: The reasoning given for PEPs in A4 above also applies to
 README and other ancillary files. By adopting a standard
 markup, these files can be converted to attractive
 cross-referenced HTML and put up on python.org. Developers of
 Python projects can also take advantage of this facility for
 their own documentation.
 Q9: Won't the superficial similarity to existing markup
 conventions cause problems, and result in people writing
 invalid markup (and not noticing, because the plaintext looks
 natural)? How forgiving is reStructuredText of "not quite
 right" markup?
 A9: There will be some mis-steps, as there would be when moving
 from one programming language to another. As with any
 language, proficiency grows with experience. Luckily,
 reStructuredText is a very little language indeed.
 As with any syntax, there is the possibility of syntax errors.
 It is expected that a user will run the processing system over
 their input and check the output for correctness.
 In a strict sense, the reStructuredText parser is very
 unforgiving (as it should be; "In the face of ambiguity,
 refuse the temptation to guess" [22]_ applies to parsing
 markup as well as computer languages). Here's a design goal
 from "An Introduction to reStructuredText" [13]_:
 3. Unambiguous. The rules for markup must not be open for
 interpretation. For any given input, there should be
 one and only one possible output (including error
 output).
 While unforgiving, at the same time the parser does try to be
 helpful by producing useful diagnostic output ("system
 messages"). The parser reports problems, indicating their
 level of severity (from least to most: debug, info, warning,
 error, severe). The user or the client software can decide on
 reporting thresholds; they can ignore low-level problems or
 cause high-level problems to bring processing to an immediate
 halt. Problems are reported during the parse as well as
 included in the output, often with two-way links between the
 source of the problem and the system message explaining it.
 Q10: Will the docstrings in the Python standard library modules be
 converted to reStructuredText?
 A10: Over time, with the help of the developer community, many
 modules will be converted. Some modules may never be
 converted. A future toolset will have to allow for
 incompleteness.
References & Footnotes
 [1] http://structuredtext.sourceforge.net/
 [2] http://www.python.org/sigs/doc-sig/
 [3] http://www.w3.org/XML/
 [4] http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/general.html
 [5] http://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/docbook.html
 [6] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/
 [7] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/#xhtml1
 [8] http://www.tug.org/interest.html
 [9] http://www.perldoc.com/perl5.6/pod/perlpod.html
 [10] http://java.sun.com/j2se/javadoc/
 [11] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/mirror/setext.html
 [12] http://dev.zope.org/Members/jim/StructuredTextWiki/FrontPage
 [13] An Introduction to reStructuredText
 http://structuredtext.sourceforge.net/spec/introduction.txt
 [14] Problems with StructuredText
 http://structuredtext.sourceforge.net/spec/problems.txt
 [15] reStructuredText Markup Specification
 http://structuredtext.sourceforge.net/spec/reStructuredText.txt
 [16] A Record of reStructuredText Syntax Alternatives
 http://structuredtext.sourceforge.net/spec/alternatives.txt
 [17] reStructuredText Directives
 http://structuredtext.sourceforge.net/spec/directives.txt
 [18] Quick reStructuredText
 http://structuredtext.sourceforge.net/docs/quickref.html
 [19] PEP 1, PEP Guidelines, Warsaw, Hylton
 http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0001.html
 [20] PEP 9, Sample PEP Template, Warsaw
 http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0009.html
 [21] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/
 [22] From "The Zen of Python (by Tim Peters)",
 http://www.python.org/doc/Humor.html#zen
 [23] PEP 216, Docstring Format, Zadka
 http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0216.html
Copyright
 This document has been placed in the public domain.
Acknowledgements
 Some text is borrowed from PEP 216, Docstring Format [23]_, by
 Moshe Zadka.
 Special thanks to all members past & present of the Python Doc-SIG.

Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
sentence-end-double-space: t
fill-column: 70
End: