On 2 January 2013 18:21, Stuart Rackham <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 2, 7:48 pm, james <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I'm sure it's possible but don't know how much work it would be (or even >> > how useful e.g. the comments in the examples above are redundant). >> >> > Cheers, Stuart >> >> I think its a bit unfair to pick on example comments like that; I do >> find that comment style useful when programming and I don't see why it >> would be different for doc sources. Hopefully real-world comments will >> focus on the 'why' and not the trivial 'what'. > > On the contrary, when proposing a feature use cases form the primary > argument -- if the use cases don't justify the feature nothing will.
Whilst I can see that commenting attributes and settings (at least the tricky ones) might be useful I don't think that comments are so useful in the rest of what is a *document* not a program. Since these few cases can also be commented with out-of-line comments there doesn't seem to be enough justification for the cost of what is likely to be extra pre-processing to remove the comments, except in literals, and other passthrough cases. Since users can define custom passthrough markup, within which the // syntax would be expected to be untouched, it is likely that this is a complex change. Cheers Lex > > Cheers, Stuart > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "asciidoc" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
