2015-09-22 9:10 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]>: > > > 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, ... >
But, if you want to integrate with IDE support for that extended syntax, then it would be nice to have an idea of the syntax used... Otherwise we're back at the special leading char to determine the format :( Side opinion to come to the point: I think that Pillar would make a better implementation than the ]style[ stuff. Thierry
