Thanks Ed, I believe your solution is the most efficient; core documentation is just as important as basis/extra.
I hadn't studied the implementation and I thought perhaps yet another markup was being developed. -Adam On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Eduardo Cavazos <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Friday 26 December 2008 12:09:10 am Adam wrote: > >> Why not integrate Farkup or another plain text markup such as rst? > > I think that a farkup approach *should* be explored. > > However, a nice property of 'easy-help' is that the implementation is simple > in that the "markup" words are just parsing words. Where heavy-lifting > parsing is needed, it falls back on the standard Factor lexer and parser. > > A more complex wiki-style markup language would probably employ PEGs. Don't > get me wrong, I love pegs, but they're definately a heavy-weight depenency. > > Since easy-help is implemented as parsing words which expand into the standard > Factor help markup, it's no problem at all two mix the two styles in the same > file, for example when easy-help doesn't easily allow for some complex > expression. > > It would be nice to be able to use something like 'easy-help' when documenting > core words. I think a PEG dependency would prevent inclusion of such a markup > system at the core level. Something along the lines of easy-help with it's > much more conservative implementation might stand a better chance. > > Ed > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Factor-talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
