On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:43:45PM +0200, Markus Heiser wrote: > > Am 30.03.21 um 13:35 schrieb Jani Nikula: > > > If the introduction were "/*rST" instead of "/**", would we have > > > consensus? It gives us a path to let people intermix kernel-doc and > > > hawkmoth comments in the same file, which would be amazing. > > > If you want to allow two syntaxes for documentation comments (current > > kernel-doc and pure reStructuredText with just the comment markers and > > indentation removed) I think the natural first step would be to modify > > kernel-doc the perl script to support that. It would probably even be > > trivial. > > My 2cent: to tag the markup of the documentation, in python they > use a variable named __docformat__ [PEP-258] / e.g.: > > __docformat__ = "restructuredtext en" > > [PEP-258] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0258/#choice-of-docstring-format I don't think we need to do that. We can use .. kernel-doc:: foo.c to indicate the comments are in kernel-doc format and .. hawkmoth:: bar.c to indicate the comments are in hawkmoth format. Of course, that means we have to choose for an entire .c file whether it's in hawkmoth or kernel-doc format, but that's also true for pep-258. > > Perhaps the bare minimum is running rustdoc first, and generating the > > results into Sphinx static pages [1], to make them part of the > > whole. Even if the HTML style might be different. > > Cross referencing will be problematic, I think. That would be a second step. I'd rather see the rst files gain the ability to have: .. rustdoc:: quux.rs to bring the markdown into the sphinx system.
