-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
Showing
18 changed files
with
4,540 additions
and
50 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
dfc7168
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems that this commit messes something up?
dfc7168
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah it looks like RST doesn't like code blocks unless there's a blank line after the
::
. Another one of those nice features which is apparently just so intuitive that it doesn't need writing down anywhere.dfc7168
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems that this is actually written down. Although as important as it is, it is usually only the last thing mentioned....
Sphinx doc
Also in the ref above http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/restructuredtext.html#literal-blocks
dfc7168
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Anyway, I guess we can easily fix this.
dfc7168
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not obvious to me from the wording that the "literal block" doesn't include the preceding
::
. It has a certain consistency if you think of the::
as a blank paragraph, but that's not at all intuitive. Either way, it's fixed in #12435.