> On 14 Apr 2015, at 15:51, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Am 14.04.2015 um 14:24 schrieb Peter Uhnák <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Christophe Demarey >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Le 14 avr. 2015 à 11:43, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit : >> >> > how complete it is? >> > we would really like to think on: >> > >> > 1) include petitparser in Pharo >> > 2) allow the writing of class docs in MD format :) >> >> I would prefer pillar for class / packages comments >> >> I was quite surprised there are any MD defendants considering the pillar >> push. But since diversity is (often) a good think maybe having something >> like gt-inspector there would be cool where you can add this in whatever >> format you want. (And maybe one day someone will write pillar to >> morphic/whatever converter and it would be even cooler.) >> > It is a difficult topic. I agree with anyone that MarkDown is not a good > format for parsing. Pillar is the right thing to do here. But there is one > point of MarkDown that is hard to beat. A MarkDown text is always good to > read, eben while writing. In something like a class comment it would be easy > to use. What we don't want is to write system documentation in a format that > you need to convert first before you can see the result. It is either having > a wysiwyg editor for those things with pillar below or a simple format that > can both. > > my 2 cents,
that’s actually my main point too, yes. Esteban > > norbert
