On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 02:15:24AM +0000, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote: > > I have a feature request ... could you automarkup NULL as being > > :c:macro? > > Or maybe just anything matching \<[[:upper:]_[:digit:]]*\> > > (i may have my regex syntax confused ... a word composed of any > > arrangement of upper-case, digits and underscores.) > > I think what you are suggesting are two separate things. > > For NULL, what you're interested in is that it appears in a monospaced font, as > if written ``NULL``, right? As I don't think a cross-reference to "the NULL > macro definition" would make much sense. > > While "anything containing only upper-case, digits and underscores" would > actually be for cross-referencing to the definition of the macro symbol in > question, right? Well, maybe! What I'd really like is to remove all the markup from xarray.rst. Jon managed to get rid of most of it with the (), but there's still markup on: LONG_MAX NULL -EBUSY true XA_MARK_[012] XA_FLAGS_* ENOMEM EINVAL I'm not sure there's much that automarkup can do about ``true``, but all the others fit the all-caps-and-underscore-and-digits pattern. I don't know how much we want errnos to link to anything in particular. So maybe split these into 'well-known' (eg defined by ANSI C or POSIX) definitions and things which are local macros: LONG_MAX NULL -EBUSY ENOMEM EINVAL vs XA_MARK_[012] XA_FLAGS_* I'm willing to add more inline kernel-doc to get this to work better. Or even convert #defines to enums ... whatever gets this working better. > At the moment, this automarkup script is being used only for cross-referencing, > but it is indeed a generic automarkup script, and could be used for the > formatting of NULL. But we also can't just make every upper-case word written > in monospaced font, as that doesn't always makes sense. > > So if I understood your two requests correctly, I think we could: > 1. Always automatically format NULL using a literal ``. > 2. Try to cross-reference every upper-case word with the macro definition using > :c:macro, but if the cross-reference doesn't exist, format it normally, since > it's just normal text (this is what we're doing for C references at the moment). > > What do you think? I think this works well, except that we need to match not just NULL but other well-known ANSI/POSIX keywords. Thanks for entertaining this!
