> David A. Wheeler scripsit:
> > This would mean that {* x *} would be interpreted *differently*
> > by a curly-infix reader (or a neoteric reader) compared to a 
> > sweet-expression reader.

On Fri, 9 May 2014 13:37:04 -0400, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> I think that's a killer.
> Frankly, this is what CDATA sections were made for.  Wrap your Lisp
> code in "<![CDATA[" and "]]>" brackets, and < is no longer magic.
> (Note that > is never magic, though there is an escape for it anyway.)

Ah! Of course!  CDATA was specifically created for this.

If you can limit yourself to XML (including XHTML) and SGML,
using CDATA sections is almost certainly the best answer.
The one caveat is that HTML doesn't support CDATA directly.
However, if you're just *processing* it as XML, you can always
read it as XML and then transform it however you like.

--- David A. Wheeler

Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
&#149; 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
&#149; Requirements for releasing software faster
&#149; Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
Readable-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to