Peter Hill

@rouson I checked out Inference-Engine, and with a small change to your `ford.md`, I managed to successfully build the docs. @everythingfunctional I checked out `rojff`, as it uses submodules, and...

Fixed in v6.1.17!

Thanks for the reproducer @francescotorsello ! This looks like it is supposed to already work, so I'm classing it as a bug.

Thanks @mbraakhekke, that would be lovely! See #223 for one possible stumbling block. I think if it's not possible to support `@notes/todo` etc in certain places, then that's probably a...

Pushed to https://github.com/Fortran-FOSS-Programmers/ford/tree/markdown-extensions There's a new file `admonition.py` which I took from the [Python markdown project](https://github.com/Python-Markdown/markdown/blob/master/markdown/extensions/admonition.py) and modified. I was testing it by hand, so there's no changes to actually...

I'm not sure what you mean -- all the docstrings from the Fortran source are passed through markdown in `FortranBase.markdown`: https://github.com/Fortran-FOSS-Programmers/ford/blob/d74fd9a4a6a68985d52713413ba2bde4c44ac8ca/ford/sourceform.py#L327-L328 which is called (via `FortranProject.markdown`) using the `Markdown` object...

No worries, it's always tricky to follow the logic on an unfamiliar codebase!

I agree that we should explore non-breaking changes first. Hiding the breaking change behind a configuration option is a good idea if that isn't possible. We could then print a...

I'm a bit surprised that the source for procedures in `include`d files isn't shown -- that sounds like a bug. I'll try and investigate I don't think that squashing these...

The problem is that while `include` statements are processed when building up the documentation, when it comes to include the source, only the unprocessed source files are read and searched...