Tweak doc markdown subset description #299
Open
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I've been examining in some detail the (hundreds of) existing Janet docstrings and think I've got a fairly good impression of which features are being used and which not so much [1].
This PR contains some suggested modifications to the description of the subset of Markdown supported by Janet docstrings. It also includes some suggested changes to the terms used to more closely match what I encountered in the most recent CommonMark spec and the Markdown Syntax page. Also, I don't think block quotes are supported so I removed a mention of it. FWIW, in its place, paragraphs are mentioned.
The changed text suggests the mentioning of:
Though there are some caveats in the above list, in practice I think the docstrings turn out pretty well and I don't personally find the limitations mentioned above to be that important (at least not for the docstrings of Janet itself).
Also, there are some other things that more or less function (e.g. bold, italics, and underlining), but are hardly used and I think it might be worth considering removal of at least underlining (which is not part of Markdown or CommonMark AFAIU) [3]. I didn't mention them in this PR as I thought it would be to discuss first (perhaps elsewhere).
[1] Happy to discuss and provide details to interested parties.
[2] I haven't found an instance of the fenced code block feature being used (though the indented version is used in a few places).
[3] See this issue for more discussion about the underlining feature.