Re: Proposal for handling .hx files with Sphinx

[Peter Maydell]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 06:40, Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> John Snow <address@hidden> writes:
> > Still, I do want to ask: Are we sure we want to double-down on keeping
> > the .hx files around instead of trying to move to a more generic data
> > format?
>
> One the one hand, I'd prefer to invest as little as practical into .hx.
> On the other hand, adding more hard dependencies on QAPIfication is not
> a good idea.
>
> What's the stupidest solution that could possibly work now?  Is it the
> one Peter sketched?

FWIW, I wrote some code for the Sphinx extension approach yesterday,
along the 'simplest possible thing' lines. It's less than 200 lines
of Python (though I still need to put in the support for DEFHEADING
and ARCHHEADING). The actual texinfo fragments in the various .hx
files of course would also need to be hand-converted to rST, same
as the hand-written manual .texi file contents.

(This has been easier than my last half-attempt at
updating qapi-gen to support output of rST format...)

thanks
-- PMM