make the terminal directive more consistent

[akcano]

This is a conceptual PR to suggest a breaking change in the behaviour of the .. terminal directive. Currently, there are two issues:

1. The :input: serves two purposes: it's an option (I suppose this was done to provide a shorthand one-line version of the directive) and a prefix to disambiguate commands from output, which may be confusing for people who are familiar with reSrtucturedText but not this extension.
2. The non-root prompt includes a hardcoded home directory designation (~), which kinda defies the purpose if the command is supposed to occur elsewhere.

The contra part here is obvious: this breaks the directive as it's currently used. Let's discuss.

[ru-fu]

I'm fine with the prompt change.

However, I don't understand the problem with the :input: field. In the basic case (which is probably 90% of all my uses of the terminal directive), I'll have one input line, and the rest is output. So :input: is the field that provides the terminal input, and this is much clearer imo than parsing the content of the directive.
I understand that it can be slightly confusing when you have several input lines, but then I think it's still easier to use the "same" syntax for all input lines.

This is definitely not a serious UX issue that warrants breaking the extension.

What I would suggest is to make the :input: field fully optional - if you don't specify it, the directive shouldn't show the prompt.
(Currently, you can already leave it out, but you'll get an empty prompt then.)
If we change this, the directive can be used in one of two ways: either with a single input line (specified as an option field) or with several input lines (specified as parts of the directive content). This will leave the existing functionality in place, so nothing will break, but we can update the readme to promote using one of the two ways and not mix them.

[akcano]

The only problem arises when :input: occurs mid-content; it looks confusing. The syntax clearly suggests it's a directive option, and directive options usually follow their directives immediately. It's bearable, we can live with this internally, but distributing non-idiomatic directives is something we can avoid.

I'm OK with your suggestion, though, because the confusion mainly arose when seeing these two prompt types used together. In fact, I'd go further and make these two styles mutually exclusive; what do you think?

[ru-fu]

The syntax clearly suggests it's a directive option,

I chose the syntax mainly so you wouldn't need to remember two different versions - but also to make sure we don't run into problems where you would need exactly that format in the terminal output. I think :input: is quite unlikely to appear at the beginning of a line in a terminal, while $$$ is probably also not common, but I could imagine it being used as a divider or something in script output.

In fact, I'd go further and make these two styles mutually exclusive; what do you think?

I would document them to be mutually exclusive, but not actually enforce it. Enforcing it would be a breaking change, and I don't see a need for that.

[ru-fu]

This is failing now (see the action).

Can you also update the readme?

[ru-fu]

Looks good, thanks!

Can you increase the version number in setup.cfg (otherwise I won't be able to publish 😉 )?

[akcano]

Looks good, thanks!

Can you increase the version number in setup.cfg (otherwise I won't be able to publish 😉 )?

done!

[ru-fu]

Thanks!