This allows to inject set of directives and roles to RSTStateMachine on runtime. That allows custom reST parsers to switch own set of directives and roles on each parse.
This appears to be perhaps a partial solution to the issue I raised in https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/bugs/401/, such that global variables should be removed in favour of passing them through the parsing chain.
Is this patch being considered?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This appears to be perhaps a partial solution to the issue I raised in https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/bugs/401/, such that global variables
should be removed in favour of passing them through the parsing chain.
Is this patch being considered?
any patch is considered.
things are speedier if there is documentation and tests (i assume you did
test the patch so why not pass this on)
in the patch.
the real hard thing for me to check is ... is this safe ... loading
directives into docutils
Status: open Group: None Created: Sun Jun 09, 2019 05:11 AM UTC by Takeshi KOMIYA Last Updated: Sun Jun 09, 2019 05:11 AM UTC Owner: nobody Attachments:
This allows to inject set of directives and roles to RSTStateMachine on
runtime. That allows custom reST parsers to switch own set of directives
and roles on each parse.
Status: open Group: None Created: Sun Jun 09, 2019 05:11 AM UTC by Takeshi KOMIYA Last Updated: Sun Aug 09, 2020 07:16 PM UTC Owner: nobody Attachments:
This allows to inject set of directives and roles to RSTStateMachine on
runtime. That allows custom reST parsers to switch own set of directives
and roles on each parse.
This appears to be perhaps a partial solution to the issue I raised in https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/bugs/401/, such that global variables should be removed in favour of passing them through the parsing chain.
Is this patch being considered?
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 21:16, Chris Sewell chrisjsewell@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
things are speedier if there is documentation and tests (i assume you did
test the patch so why not pass this on)
in the patch.
the real hard thing for me to check is ... is this safe ... loading
directives into docutils
any thoughts help ?
Related
Patches: #156
So I can think of any suitable tests, what would your definiton of safe be here?
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 02:11, Chris Sewell chrisjsewell@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
some general unittests/functional tests are mandatory (was in aegis SCM)
considerations remarks for the security documentation ?
Related
Patches: #156
Supersedes patch #17.