D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:22:38 -0500 (EST)
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > > So what have we decided about this suggestion. Should I submit the
> > > patch or just forget about it? So far some people like it and some
> > > people think that it is unneccessary. No one so far has suggested that
> > > it would harm the system or people's use of it.
> >
> > I have gone over the discussion about this issue. I think there is
> > interest in a ReST output format, but only a 100% ReST-compliant one. I
> > don't think anyone felt they wanted a ReST-like format just for
> > appearance sake. For that reason, I have added this TODO entry:
>
> Really? I thought that the opposite was true, that the argument
> against this change was that it was trying to be ReST. That's why I
> made a few posts arguing that while it mostly worked ReST, it was
> really just a logical extension of the existing border control.
Well, the discussion kind of went around and around. What I saw was
people wanting ReST, but not wanting the patch to be rejected because it
didn't do 100% ReST, saying they can clean up the output, or don't use
backslashes. Being API-change-phobic, the idea of implementing
something like ReST then adding full ReST later seems bad. Now, I think
it could be implemented with a switch to turn off the ReST escaping, but
in general ReST was the attactiveness of the patch.
> > As I remember, no actual patch was posted for this.
>
> There was. I am attaching it again in case there were any changes to
> original files in the meantime.
I knew I had seen it but could not find it in the archives; I will link
to this version on the TODO list.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
