Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[3.13] gh-127833: Docs: Add a grammar-snippet directive & replace productionlist (GH-127835) #129689

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: 3.13
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

@miss-islington miss-islington commented Feb 5, 2025

As a first step toward aligning the grammar documentation with Python's actual
grammar, this overrides the ReST productionlist directive to:

  • use : instead of the ::= symbol
  • add syntax highlighting for strings (using a Pygments highlighting class)

All links and link targets should be preserved. (Unfortunately, this reaches
into some Sphinx internals; I don't see a better way to do exactly what
Sphinx does.)

This also adds a new directive, grammar-snippet, which formats the snippet
almost exactly like what's in the source, modulo syntax highlighting and
keeping the backtick character to mark links to other rules.
This will allow formatting the snippets as in the grammar file
(file:///home/encukou/dev/cpython/Doc/build/html/reference/grammar.html).

The new directive is applied to two simple rules in toplevel_components.rst


(cherry picked from commit 58a4357)

Co-authored-by: Petr Viktorin encukou@gmail.com
Co-authored-by: Blaise Pabon blaise@gmail.com
Co-authored-by: William Ferreira wqferr@gmail.com
Co-authored-by: bswck bartoszpiotrslawecki@gmail.com
Co-authored-by: Adam Turner 9087854+aa-turner@users.noreply.github.com


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--129689.org.readthedocs.build/

…roductionlist` (pythonGH-127835)

As a first step toward aligning the grammar documentation with Python's actual
grammar, this overrides the ReST `productionlist` directive to:
- use `:` instead of the `::=` symbol
- add syntax highlighting for strings (using a Pygments highlighting class)

All links and link targets should be preserved. (Unfortunately, this reaches
into some Sphinx internals; I don't see a better way to do exactly what
Sphinx does.)

This also adds a new directive, `grammar-snippet`, which formats the snippet
almost exactly like what's in the source, modulo syntax highlighting and
keeping the backtick character to mark links to other rules.
This will allow formatting the snippets as in the grammar file
(file:///home/encukou/dev/cpython/Doc/build/html/reference/grammar.html).

The new directive is applied to two simple rules in toplevel_components.rst

---------
(cherry picked from commit 58a4357)

Co-authored-by: Petr Viktorin <encukou@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Blaise Pabon <blaise@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: William Ferreira <wqferr@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: bswck <bartoszpiotrslawecki@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <9087854+aa-turner@users.noreply.github.com>
@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Feb 5, 2025

Let's not merge the backport just yet. I'd like to see this change go through the release process first.

@encukou encukou marked this pull request as draft February 5, 2025 15:27
@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Feb 17, 2025

It should be merged together with a follow-up PR, #129692. If at all.

@AA-Turner
Copy link
Member

#130376 fixes the help() output. I think we should backport, especially as this PR is a pre-requisite for all of the work done on improving how we describe the grammar in the documentation. What do you think @encukou?

A

@encukou
Copy link
Member

encukou commented Mar 21, 2025

I'm considering to backporting this for the syntax highlighting, but the upcoming grammar docs improvements are another matter. Those are tied to the current grammar, verifying them is a fiddly manual process, and they're interlinked in complex ways -- a token in some grammar rule might need to move to another rule in another file, which Git won't catch as a conflict, and the nonexistent tests won't either (of course I'd like to add tests, but that does require more automation, and in the current approach, rewriting the prose needs to come first.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants