Rene Rivera wrote:
João Abecasis wrote:
In the future, there has been talk about adding the recognition of
unicode escape sequences as part of a quickbook preprocessor
(something like \u00A0 for nbsp). Then again, it's probably not that
much better than ''' '''.
Ah, no, I'd say that's worse. At least ``` ``` is humanly legible
(barely).
The last option, I think, would be to add special markup for this,
e.g., [nbsp] (?).
As a single character? I.e. in[nbsp]one[nbsp]line. That's not much
better than escaping to xml. My suggestion would be: 'in one line', and
['in one line].
I think we should take advantage of macros as much as possible
before considering any syntax addition. nbsp can definitely be
a macro, FWIW, e.g.:
[def _nbsp_ [''' ''']]
I guess another possibility is to make an "nobreak" code syntax. And
then one could: [nobreak] `in one line`.
If this is a common use case, then I'd lean towards the nobreak
syntax. This begs to ask the question: shouldn't the teletype
markup preserve spaces like pre? That is, shouldn't [^-f /Jambase/]
do the right thing already?
Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today
Register for a JBoss Training Course. Free Certification Exam
for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005. For more info visit:
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7628&alloc_id=16845&op=click
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
