This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Schemey markup (was Re: Doc Tasks)
Lalo Martins <lalo@webcom.com> writes:
> Hmm. Or of course you could write proper Scheme and quote
> strings. Then of course you'd want parens, because you're
> already used to them if you're working on Guile.
no, I don't thing so. at least to me, writing a docstring works like:
I write a string, and escape out when I want to mark something up.
note also that most people who ever wrote docstrings did it in Elisp
or Common Lisp code. no parens for markup there either.
> (example "I can use as much parenthesis as I want inside my text and it
> won't confuse the parser (because it's" (emph "proper") "Scheme).
> I can also use whatever indentation I want. And I'll get proper
> syntax highlighting. And smilies are allowed ;-) and don't
> even
> break parenthesis balancing (at least not in" (cmd "jed")
> ", dunno 'bout" (cmd "emacs") ".")
>
> (opinion "Oh, and now that I did it, I think it looks kinda pretty
> too ;-)")
not to me. but let's not descend into style arguments.
my main point was that the markup (whatever syntax it may use) should
have the right *semantics*. as far as syntax goes, my main objection
to *ML is that it's kinda hard on the eyes and wrists.
> That would require that all tags are implemented as procedures,
> with options as keywords and everything else as a list. Then
> the final presentation generators have to come up with a smart
> string concatenation method and voila.
I'm not sure I understand this. the presentation generators have to
map Guile semantic tags to target tags, in many cases lossily, which
is hardly string concatenation. can you explain?
> []s,
> |alo
> +----
parentatically yours,
--mike
--
The journey of a thousand miles begins with an open parenthesis.
-- Rainer Joswig