Re: #bbinclude in included script

> > In looking at your code, I'm a bit confused. > > First, why not just specify the included includes as comments? You mean, as persistent includes? Well, persistent includes are more verbose, and not needed unless you’re planning to update the. In this case, when I update, the outermost

Re: #bbinclude in included script

Neil, In looking at your code, I'm a bit confused. First, why not just specify the included includes as comments? Second, why does your include change the doctype from invocation to invocation? On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 5:17:16 AM UTC-7, Neil Faiman wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:13 AM,

Re: #bbinclude in included script

On Mar 23, 2018, at 12:13 AM, Neil Faiman wrote: > > For years, I’ve been using persistent includes () that > contain plain includes (#bbinclude …). This always works just as I want: The > persistent include body is inserted in the document, and then the #bbincludes >

#bbinclude in included script

For years, I’ve been using persistent includes () that contain plain includes (#bbinclude …). This always works just as I want: The persistent include body is inserted in the document, and then the #bbincludes in the inserted text are recursively substituted. In other places I’ve used included