John Maddock wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> "John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> So.... I'm hoping that this can be solved by changing the
>>> pretty-printing code, but I have suspicions that the problems may
>>> run deeper.
>> In ReST they have a "breaking non-space." That is, if you
>> backslash-escape a space character, you get something that can
>> separate tokens without generating any space in the output:
>>
>> x\ super(2)
>>
>> In quickbook maybe that should be:
>>
>> x[]super(2)
>>
>> Although I think I might prefer:
>>
>> x!super(2)
>>
>> An exclamation point with no whitespace on either side is sufficiently
>> rare, I think.
>
> That would do it, but note that we already have a poor-man's version of this
> using an empty comment:
>
> x[/]super(2)
Good idea! It should definitely work. The reason why it is not working
is unrelated, but I think I know why.
> But you still get the extra whitespace :-(
Ok, here's what I think:
My proposed syntax:
x[super 2]
does not have this problem. You do not need to add a space between
x and the template /super/. It is also sufficiently unambiguous.
It does not look like a common function call so you do not have
to resort to some naming convention, like double-underscores.
If there are no objections, I'd like to switch to this syntax to
templates. Applying it to macros will break existing qbk files,
which I do not want to do. So, I'll just let them be and get
them deprecated. That means, I'd like templates to totally replace
macros.
So, going back to John's experiment, I'd like the final qbk code
to be:
[template alpha[] '''α''']
[template super[text] '''<superscript>'''[text]'''</superscript>''']
[template pow[a, b] [a]'''<superscript>'''[b]'''</superscript>''' ]
Notice [text], [a] and [b] are bracketed. They are essentially
templates that exist only in the duration of the template body
(that is their scope). Notice too that alpha[] is a nullary
template.
Then...
x[super 2]
[pow[x][2]]
[pow[alpha][2]]
I am confident I can get this to work. Comments? Objections?
> Even this:
>
> x'''<superscript>2</superscript>'''
>
> has extra whitespace inserted!
Which is clearly wrong. I'll investigate some more. I think it has to do
with tagging escaped HTML and placing them in separate line.
Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
