> On 22 Sep 2015, at 08:47, Christophe Demarey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Le 22 sept. 2015 à 07:49, [email protected] a écrit : > >> >> Le 22 sept. 2015 07:40, "Sven Van Caekenberghe" <[email protected]> a écrit : >> > >> > >> > > On 21 Sep 2015, at 23:53, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > I think that having metadata (style) language and data (source code) >> > > mixed together is a bad idea. >> > > I never like the ]lang[ tag because it is a huge hack. It does not even >> > > exist in the Smalltalk syntax!!! >> > > We save code that the parser cannot parse. What we fun idea. >> > > So people are bashing for backward compatibility and we remove a bad way >> > > to encode >> > > metadata then suddenly it looks like we were doing something bad. >> > > >> > > Stef >> > >> > I am with Stef, it is a silly idea to mix the two. Nobody uses this in >> > Pharo. Cleaning up means simplifying too. >> >> In the code no. But in the comments, that would be good to have back. In >> color form. As we can write pillar class comments, can't we render them ? >> Moose as an editor/viewer for pillar files >> >> > > Yes, it is where we want to go: use Pillar for styled comments. > Once we have that, we can remove Text styling from source code / comments.
Yes, inside a comment, which should be totally opaque from a language syntax standpoint, you can do whatever you want: HTML, Markdown, Pillar, Pier, ...
