Max Nikulin <maniku...@gmail.com> writes:
> E.g. pandoc uses another approach:
>
> printf '%s\n' '| \(|x|\) | \(|x|\) |' | pandoc -f org -t latex
> \begin{longtable}[]{@{}ll@{}}
> \toprule
> \endhead
> \(|x|\) & \(|x|\) \\
> \bottomrule
> \end{longtable}
>
> Likely you would be unhappy if some of you document were exported in a
> different way due to change of parsing rules. On the other hand, I do
> not have a collection of pitfalls for pandoc.
That Pandoc output looks correct to me. Is there a gotcha I do not see?
If not, then that is exactly what I would expect from the Org parser.
> An extensive test suite is necessary to consider alternatives for
> parsing rules.
Yes, that much is given. Without an extensive test suite, working on a
parser would be nothing but a waste of time, and the end result would
be, at least for us humans, an infinite stream of bugs.
> Current logic may be roughly describes as the following. When Org
> recognizes start of some element, it tries to find its end, mostly
> neglecting opening markers. A fragment is parsed for nested elements
> *after* boundaries of the parent element are determined.
Honestly? That sounds like a wrong approach to parsing. (And if that
is the case, then that could explain why I keep fighting the Org parser
on a daily basis, compared to practically never in every other language
I use.)
Rudy
--
"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time"
--- T. S. Eliot, Little Gidding, Four Quarters, 1943
Rudolf Adamkovič <rud...@adamkovic.org> [he/him]
http://adamkovic.org
