On 4 Jan 2013, at 23:09, Ian Hinder ian.hinder@aei.mpg.de wrote:

On 4 Jan 2013, at 20:52, Frank Loeffler knarf@cct.lsu.edu wrote:

...

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 06:20:23PM +0100, Ian Hinder wrote:

...

...

Does that work with the parser in utils/Scripts/Parse_READMES.pl?

I doubt it. The README predates that script.

I don't care which format we end up with, but there should only be one format for these READMEs. Maybe it is time to change (and parsing that should be relatively easy), but right now most READMEs follow the format that script understands.

Which tools can parse the format of the Multipole README?

e.g. http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html, http://docs.python.org/devguide/documenting.html, etc

If we want to recommend a format, then it should be documented at https://docs.einsteintoolkit.org/et-docs/Einstein_Toolkit_standards. If starting from scratch now, I would use an existing format which was supported by external tools. Since most thorns I assume follow the original format however, that is the most sensible one to use in the short term. Feel free to convert the Multipole README file.

How reliable is machine-parsing of that format? My motivation in experimenting with the restructured text format was to have something which could be rendered nicely on a web page and was also easily human-readable.