Jeremy Maitin-Shepard

> Going forward, can we change NONITPICK to NO_NIT_PICK? I keep reading it as NON_IT_PICK rofl Makes sense --- or could be: nowarnxref or something --- nitpick is a sphinx-specific...

I wonder if we should merge this as an experimental feature, since this PR also contains the default-literal-role and highlight changes that also apply to Python and JSON.

To be clear, by better parsing mechanism, is that in regards to the doxygen syntax, or in regards to the C++ source itself? For specifying an entity, we could allow...

> > To be clear, by better parsing mechanism, is that in regards to the doxygen syntax > > Yes. I'm not sure how the C++ parsing would need improvement....

There wasn't a need for the symbol tree except for normal xrefs so I just tried to keep it working closely to how it normally does. Note that the c++...

I added a warning that it is experimental.

> Did I mess up the rebase? Not sure what happened with `types-clang`

@2bndy5 can probably address the content tabs better than I can. As far as the toc, I'm not sure if the :caption: is normally supposed to contain rST or if...

Instead of using `nested_parse` you should use `inline_text` as in `md_admonition.py`: https://github.com/jbms/sphinx-immaterial/blob/3b1a1a097d2923c7cd8736eb6509a0aca7d96aba/sphinx_immaterial/md_admonition.py#L24

I do believe `inline_text` is intended to parse rST --- I'll try to figure out what is happening.