| ▲ | WhyNotHugo 18 minutes ago | |
I think Typst looks really interesting for some scenarios, but inadequate for others. I like RST a lot for Python documentation, because of all the directives for types, admonitions, and lots of domain-specific stuff. I wouldn't use RST if I'm writing a book, or a research paper. In the same way, Typst looks like a great candidate for those last examples, but is likely unsuitable for documenting a library written in Python. | ||