Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Guillem Jover wrote:
There's been a wiki page trying to track this, including packages
which formatting was proving problematic:
<http://wiki.debian.org/Aptitude::Parse-Description-Bullets=true>
Great. The most important information from this page for myself is that
there are actually other tools (not the one I intended to write for
Blends) which actually would profit from a more standardized formating
of descriptions. IMHO this rectifies filing bug reports against packages
that try to implement a list but fail to use the form:
has_list |= ( line =~ /^\s+-/ ) # a line starts with " -"
has_list |= ( line =~ /^\s+\+/ ) # " +"
has_list |= ( line =~ /^\s+\*/ ) # " *"
has_list |= ( line =~ /^\s+o\s+/ ) # " o "
BTW, why are you checking for \s after the itemizing symbol only after
'o'? IMHO it should always follow each itemizing symbol. I also see
no good chances to detect multi level lists and thus I would like to
come back to more strict rules regarding the itemizing symbol and the
spacing. In contrast to the comment in the end the check also allows
" -"
and I would rather like to force
/^ - / or /^ + /
(yes, not checking for any space but really the character ' ' = blank).
IMHO this would increase the reliability of detecting a list and if there
are tools like aptitude who are actually making use of it it should be
worth the effort.
For the sake of interest: What programming language is the script above?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: