On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:22:38 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I suppose it is my fault for mentioning ReST. That was the reason I
> > looked into this but that is not what the final proposal is.
>
> Well, if you can't just paste your output into ReST without having to
> hand-munge it afterwards, then ISTM the argument for having this
> additional bit of complexity in our printing routines really falls flat.
But Tom, you are still treating this as a ReST option. Please, pretend
that I never mentioned ReST. Consider this simply as a proposal to
make a logical extension to the "border [0|1|2]" setting. If you were
going to extend border to 3, what would you do? Adding extra row
dividers and turning dashes into equal signs for the existing row
divider seems pretty logical on its own without referencing any
external formats.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
