PEP 842: New revision based on discussion feedback - #5077
Conversation
Documentation build overview
9 files changed ·
|
|
Echoing what I said on DPO: If nobody has any complaints about the Sphinx plugin here, I'll merge this today or tomorrow (partially depending on when Barry posts PEP 844). |
|
Can you split out the extension to another PR? Then we don't need to delay the PEP update. |
|
I can, but I'm hesitant to do so, since it makes the proposed solution look pretty bad :( 
The highlighting makes it feel way more natural. |
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
For Barry to link against in PEP 844.
|
I'm going to try out GitHub's fancy new PR stacking thing for the Sphinx extension. |
|
After careful analysis, it seems that it did not work at all. I'm going to merge this and put up the highlighting in a new PR. |
Unfortunately it's not possible from forks, which makes the feature pretty much useless for many open-source projects. https://discuss.python.org/t/could-we-use-the-new-stacked-pr-workflow/108383/2 |
|
Thanks GitHub 😞 |
PEP 123: Summary of changes)@hugovk -- Not too sure who to ping, but I added a Sphinx extension to highlight custom keywords. Is that okay? It's not too complex, and I think it makes the proposed syntax look really nice.