On 23 Mar 2008, at 03:50, Michel Fortin wrote:
Le 2008-03-22 à 21:15, Fletcher T. Penney a écrit :
Any reason for including Text::MultiMarkdown and not the official
MultiMarkdown itself?
Hum, because I just took what was bundled with Text::Markdown; it
was easier that way and I though it was the same thing just
packaged differently. Perhaps I shouldn't have.
It's the same thing in the same way that Text::Markdown is "just
markdown, packaged differently".
It would be useful for finding any areas where the two versions
differ from each other, in addition to where MMD differs from
other implementations.
But should we expect any difference? I agree that I should be using
the official MultiMarkdown -- and I've added it now --, but is it
still worth keeping Text::MultiMarkdown then?
Yes, please also keep Text::MultiMarkdown. This is actually *much
more* different to fletcher's MultiMarkdown than Text::Markdown is to
Markdown.pl - as with my refactoring, MultiMarkdown is able to just
overload / hook into Text::Markdown (as I've created the relevant
hook points), as opposed to being a copy & paste of original markdown
with bits stuck on the side.. (No offense meant here - I'm only able
to do this as I'm *also* maintaining a fork of Markdown).
Again, I'm aiming form *zero difference* between Text::MultiMarkdown
and 'official' MultiMarkdown, except for bugs that I've fixed (so we
shouldn't *expect* difference, and if it's found, and I don't have
an explicit test in my distribution to cover it - it's a bug in my
code and I *will fix it*).. My code does pass all of Fletcher's test
suite, so I'm sure it's pretty similar. ;)
As previously noted, s/MultiMarkdown/Markdown/g; s/Fletcher/John/g;
in the paragraph above is also be true.
Cheers
Tom
_______________________________________________
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
