On 2013-02-26, Kevin Horn wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Guenter Milde <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2013-02-25, Kevin Horn wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Thomas Güttler <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ... >> > An extension wouldn't be terribly difficult by the way. I think it would >> > just be a matter of creating a custom text role that spits out the value >> of >> > a config var. It should be pretty simple to create, though I haven't >> seen >> > anything like it yet, so perhaps it's not as easy as I think. >> In my view, a new `directive for substitution definitions`__ would be more >> in line with the existing reStructuredText syntax. Usually, a rst `role` >> changes the meaning of the content while a rst `substitution` replaces the >> content. > Hmmm. I'm not sure that I agree with this, though I'm not sure that I > disagree with it either. > The main reason I was thinking of a role is because I tend to think of > substitutions when I want to make a block-level item into an inline > structure, though obviously that's not the only use for them. > A directive+substitution would certainly work, though is more complex. > Assuming for just a moment that I had the option of using either a > directive+substitution or a role, I think I would prefer a > directive+substitution when the "variable" was repeated several times in a > document, and a role when it wasn't. > Maybe it makes sense to have both a role _and_ a directive. You could add a feature request at the Docutils tracker http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=38414&atid=422033 so that the idea is not forgotten. >> How about a new directive "echo" that expands environment variables: >> .. |LANG| echo:: $LANG >> The value of the environment variable LANG is |LANG|. > I certainly don't care for the name, "echo", though of course that isn't > central to your argument. I'd much prefer something like "expand". > Also, when you say "environment variable", do you mean actual environment > variables (like you might see in a shell if you typed "set"), or just > variables defined in Sphinx's conf.py? > I had thought we were talking about the latter, though the former is also > an interesting idea. Using actual shell env vars is less Sphinx-specific, > and could be used in any docutils processing system , *but* could open up > security holes if used improperly. As a Docutils developer, I thought about shell variables. Looking for Python variables seems at least as security-sensitive as looking for environment variables. Günter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sphinx-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sphinx-users?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
