Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 10:10:37 UTC, bauss wrote: I just want to say everyone who doesn't use the web-interface has to look at markdown anyway because people still write code in backticks etc. despite no support; even I do that. Me, too. It's easy and unobtrusive. As for actually rendering it, Validimir has commented on this in the past. From the D Blog: First, people using NNTP/email won’t see the rendered versions. Which isn’t a big deal by itself since it’s just text, but does create feature imparity. It *is* possible to write Markdown that looks fine when rendered but is unreadable in source form, especially with some common extensions such as GitHub Flavored Markdown. Second, unless we’re careful with this, people using NNTP/mailing lists might trigger Markdown formatting that could make their post unreadable. This could be avoided, though, by only rendering messages with Markdown if they originate from the web interface, which allows previewing posts." And that quote is followed by this commentary from me: "Even so, he’s hoping to add support for Markdown at some point in the future." https://dlang.org/blog/2016/06/10/core-team-update-vladimir-panteleev/
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Friday, 9 November 2018 at 06:42:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, November 8, 2018 7:25:45 PM MST Neia Neutuladh via Digitalmars- d-learn wrote: It's not a forum. It's a newsgroup that happens to have a web interface. Newsgroups are text-only. So bbcode is out, html is out, but interpreting markdown might be reasonable. But nobody's done that work. Honestly, having markdown in messages being typical would be _really_ annoying for those of us not using the web interface, because we'd see all of those backticks and the like as backticks, not as syntax highlighting. It would be like seeing html, albeit far less intrusive. I for one would much rather that things just stay as pure text and that we not be adding any features to the web interface that encourages adding _any_ kind of markup to messages. The web interface makes it easier for folks who don't want to use a newsgroup or mailing list to interact with the newsgroup, but it's still a newsgroup, and _many_ of us use it as such. - Jonathan M Davis I just want to say everyone who doesn't use the web-interface has to look at markdown anyway because people still write code in backticks etc. despite no support; even I do that. Using markdown without support to me is not so much about whether it should be highlighted or not, but just that you can separate content from code in your message. Similar to how signatures are usually separated by 3 or more slashes and then a new line: Ex: --- Some signature
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Sunday, 11 November 2018 at 03:57:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
It may be that a feature was needed to do better character
escaping
Yeah, I would have preferred to just escape all of it (and axe
the biggest mis"feature" ddoc has imo - embedded HTML), but it
got rejected :(
On the whole, the worst features of ddoc are the ones that act
least like macros. They're the ones that are most "magical" and
the ones that generally have to be fought and worked around.
I have no problem with the
---
code
---
or with the
params:
a = whatever
bit... though the stupid _highlight crap is awful, and
random:
being a header drives me a bit nuts too. So I guess I see where
you're coming from.
Of course, I no longer care about ddoc, since I just did a custom
doc gen.
but I don't want it doing anything that encourages people to
start putting markdown in their messages, because I don't use
the web interface, I don't want to have to see markdown in the
middle of plain text messages any more than I want to see html.
Frankly, people already do this stuff and I don't see that
changing.
When I wrote my competitor for the forum back in the day, I had
it trying to auto-detect code by looking for { or ; at the end of
a line, or // at the beginning. I thought it worked reasonably
well, but in the end i didn't really like it because IMO
highlighting code on a forum is worthless anyway.
But so many people write the --- or ``` or thing that it
prolly wouldn't hurt to read it too.
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Saturday, November 10, 2018 7:51:36 PM MST Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars- d-learn wrote: > On Saturday, 10 November 2018 at 23:29:12 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > The fact that they got added to ddoc just further degrades it > > as a proper, macro-based markup language. > > The backticks were added to ddoc because they enabled something > that was *virtually impossible* in ddoc before - proper character > escaping. It actually originally had nothing to do with syntax > sugar nor even with presentation - just the constant repetition > of that myth has made it into a bit of reality. It may be that a feature was needed to do better character escaping, but backticks really don't fit in with ddoc as a whole, and they've only encouraged folks to try and add further markdown features to ddoc, which IMHO, is incredibly negative. On the whole, the worst features of ddoc are the ones that act least like macros. They're the ones that are most "magical" and the ones that generally have to be fought and worked around. Adding more markdown features just makes things worse. As such, I very much wish that we'd found a different way to fix the character escaping problem. Regardless, none of that has anything to do with what we do with syntax highlighting in the newsgroup's web interface. > On the forum though, characters are already escaped properly, so > there's no need here. Syntax highlighting for larger blocks is > something I'm meh on - I don't really care either way if we > wanted to do it. I don't really care what the web interface tries to highlight, but I don't want it doing anything that encourages people to start putting markdown in their messages, because I don't use the web interface, I don't want to have to see markdown in the middle of plain text messages any more than I want to see html. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Saturday, 10 November 2018 at 23:29:12 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: The fact that they got added to ddoc just further degrades it as a proper, macro-based markup language. The backticks were added to ddoc because they enabled something that was *virtually impossible* in ddoc before - proper character escaping. It actually originally had nothing to do with syntax sugar nor even with presentation - just the constant repetition of that myth has made it into a bit of reality. On the forum though, characters are already escaped properly, so there's no need here. Syntax highlighting for larger blocks is something I'm meh on - I don't really care either way if we wanted to do it.
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Saturday, November 10, 2018 6:53:14 AM MST Kagamin via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote: > On Friday, 9 November 2018 at 09:11:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > No, I didn't. I just used underscores, which has been used with > > plain text for emphasis for decades. Supporting markdown, would > > involve stuff like backticks for code highlighting Backticks are not from ddoc. They're from markdown and only got added to ddoc later. The fact that they got added to ddoc just further degrades it as a proper, macro-based markup language. Regardless, if it isn't clear that something is code, just put it on its own line, just like folks have been doing in mailing lists and newsgroups for decades. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Saturday, 10 November 2018 at 18:47:19 UTC, Chris Katko wrote: On Saturday, 10 November 2018 at 13:53:14 UTC, Kagamin wrote: [...] There is another possibility. Have the website run (fallible) heuristics to detect a snippet of code and automatically generate it. That would leave the mailing list people completely unchanged. [...] Simply using markup convention used in stackoverflow and reddit of formatting as code when indented by 4 blanks would already be a good step forward. I do it now even on newsgroup like comp.lang.c, the only newsgroup I still use via thunderbird (yeah, for the D groups I prefer the web interface which is really that good, contrary to all other web based newsgroup reader I ever saw). [...]
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Saturday, 10 November 2018 at 13:53:14 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Friday, 9 November 2018 at 09:11:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: No, I didn't. I just used underscores, which has been used with plain text for emphasis for decades. Supporting markdown, would involve stuff like backticks for code highlighting Backticks are from ddoc. What's the other way to indicate a code fragment? markup for urls - stuff that doesn't actually provide information to someone who's reading plain text but just gets in the way If the url is messy, it's already a mess. If it isn't, it's easier to leave url as is than bother to markup it. whereas the underscores _do_ provide information to someone reading plain text. I think what's really missing is code highlighting. Emphasis isn't very useful, in your example the verb "do" is already emphasis, so markup doesn't provide any additional information, just gets in the way. There is another possibility. Have the website run (fallible) heuristics to detect a snippet of code and automatically generate it. That would leave the mailing list people completely unchanged. However, HOW fallible becomes a huge issue. It may be so well implemented that nobody ever complains. Or, it could be so bad that it often breaks up the author's post in ways the author never planned--almost taking away the poster as the controller of what they present. That's a bit of an extreme, and unlikely, but I feel that examining extremes can be helpful to define the potential domain of the problem. We can also easily have a checkmark next to each post that disables highlighting for that post (as well as disable them in your account settings), and even a button people could press that says "this post is highlighted wrong." and the developer would get a log with the code. How many implementation "fixes" are needed depends on how fallible the detection code really is. -- But, really, I don't personally see it being "that" bad for people to put code tags / code markers around code. It's not like they're going to be peppered everywhere. If you can ignore a comment in code, you can ignore two tags (start and end) in a single post. It's an interesting argument to extend bold and italics... because people ARE already using them! But I never suggested we should support "full markdown". There's no need to support an entire standard if your forum only needs part of it. It seems like a reasonable compromise favoring maximum utility, to support code tags, as well as tags people already use like italics and bold. Automatic URL linking is a feature of 99% of forums and that would also have zero impact on the mailing list people. There may be others. Even if the goal is "minimum changes for mailing list people" it can still be done.
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Friday, 9 November 2018 at 09:11:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: No, I didn't. I just used underscores, which has been used with plain text for emphasis for decades. Supporting markdown, would involve stuff like backticks for code highlighting Backticks are from ddoc. What's the other way to indicate a code fragment? markup for urls - stuff that doesn't actually provide information to someone who's reading plain text but just gets in the way If the url is messy, it's already a mess. If it isn't, it's easier to leave url as is than bother to markup it. whereas the underscores _do_ provide information to someone reading plain text. I think what's really missing is code highlighting. Emphasis isn't very useful, in your example the verb "do" is already emphasis, so markup doesn't provide any additional information, just gets in the way.
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 05:36:54PM +, Chris Katko via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
[...]
> FYI, Allegro.CC just uses
>
>
> int main()
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> as well as for pre-formatted "monospace" text.
>
> Neither of those would pollute a mailing list in plain-text mode
> because they'd exist only at the start and end of code. I'm sure you
> had no problem reading my above code.
I find those HTML-like tags very distracting. Markdown has a far
less-intrusive syntax:
int main()
{
return 0;
}
I wouldn't mind having the web interface interpret messages as markdown,
actually. Mainly because I won't be seeing it. :-D
But as someone has already pointed out, writing emphases like _this_ and
bold like *this* is already established convention, and markdown was
designed precisely to pick up on these kinds of conventions, so it could
be added to the web forum without requiring anyone to change the way
they type their messages, and it would be readable to everyone.
T
--
I am Ohm of Borg. Resistance is voltage over current.
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Friday, 9 November 2018 at 09:11:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Friday, November 9, 2018 1:27:44 AM MST Kagamin via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Friday, 9 November 2018 at 06:42:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
> [...]
You used markdown three times in your message.
No, I didn't. I just used underscores, which has been used with
plain text for emphasis for decades. Supporting markdown, would
involve stuff like backticks for code highlighting, and special
markup for urls - stuff that doesn't actually provide
information to someone who's reading plain text but just gets
in the way, whereas the underscores _do_ provide information to
someone reading plain text.
- Jonathan M Davis
FYI, Allegro.CC just uses
int main()
{
return 0;
}
as well as for pre-formatted "monospace" text.
Neither of those would pollute a mailing list in plain-text mode
because they'd exist only at the start and end of code. I'm sure
you had no problem reading my above code.
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Friday, November 9, 2018 1:27:44 AM MST Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > On Friday, 9 November 2018 at 06:42:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > Honestly, having markdown in messages being typical would be > > _really_ annoying for those of us not using the web interface, > > because we'd see all of those backticks and the like as > > backticks, not as syntax highlighting. It would be like seeing > > html, albeit far less intrusive. I for one would much rather > > that things just stay as pure text and that we not be adding > > any features to the web interface that encourages adding _any_ > > kind of markup to messages. The web interface makes it easier > > for folks who don't want to use a newsgroup or mailing list to > > interact with the newsgroup, but it's still a newsgroup, and > > _many_ of us use it as such. > > You used markdown three times in your message. No, I didn't. I just used underscores, which has been used with plain text for emphasis for decades. Supporting markdown, would involve stuff like backticks for code highlighting, and special markup for urls - stuff that doesn't actually provide information to someone who's reading plain text but just gets in the way, whereas the underscores _do_ provide information to someone reading plain text. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Friday, 9 November 2018 at 06:42:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: Honestly, having markdown in messages being typical would be _really_ annoying for those of us not using the web interface, because we'd see all of those backticks and the like as backticks, not as syntax highlighting. It would be like seeing html, albeit far less intrusive. I for one would much rather that things just stay as pure text and that we not be adding any features to the web interface that encourages adding _any_ kind of markup to messages. The web interface makes it easier for folks who don't want to use a newsgroup or mailing list to interact with the newsgroup, but it's still a newsgroup, and _many_ of us use it as such. You used markdown three times in your message.
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Thursday, November 8, 2018 7:25:45 PM MST Neia Neutuladh via Digitalmars- d-learn wrote: > It's not a forum. It's a newsgroup that happens to have a web interface. > Newsgroups are text-only. So bbcode is out, html is out, but interpreting > markdown might be reasonable. But nobody's done that work. Honestly, having markdown in messages being typical would be _really_ annoying for those of us not using the web interface, because we'd see all of those backticks and the like as backticks, not as syntax highlighting. It would be like seeing html, albeit far less intrusive. I for one would much rather that things just stay as pure text and that we not be adding any features to the web interface that encourages adding _any_ kind of markup to messages. The web interface makes it easier for folks who don't want to use a newsgroup or mailing list to interact with the newsgroup, but it's still a newsgroup, and _many_ of us use it as such. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Fri, 09 Nov 2018 02:03:36 +, Chris Katko wrote: > Simple curious question. > > Why isn't : > > import std.stdio; > > instead: > > import std.io; IO includes things like memory mapping, sockets, listing files, named pipes, that sort of thing. Standard IO includes only reading and writing to files and the console. > (Also, while we're at it. Why doesn't this form have code highlighting? > It would much improve readibility. Doesn't that seem almost essential > for a programming forum?) It's not a forum. It's a newsgroup that happens to have a web interface. Newsgroups are text-only. So bbcode is out, html is out, but interpreting markdown might be reasonable. But nobody's done that work.
Re: Why is stdio ... stdio?
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:03:36AM +, Chris Katko via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > Simple curious question. > > Why isn't : > > import std.stdio; > > instead: > > import std.io; The reason is that std.stdio is basically just a nice D wrapper with syntactic sugar around the C library's stdio.h. There has been a std.io in the works, but unfortunately it hasn't quite materialized yet. So for now, we're stuck with std.stdio. > (Also, while we're at it. Why doesn't this form have code > highlighting? It would much improve readibility. Doesn't that seem > almost essential for a programming forum?) [...] Because this "forum" isn't really a web forum, but just a web interface to an NNTP server that also has a mailing list interface (I (mostly) use the mailing list interface). Haven't really felt a need for syntax highlighting myself, though most opinions differ. :-D T -- Latin's a dead language, as dead as can be; it killed off all the Romans, and now it's killing me! -- Schoolboy
Why is stdio ... stdio?
Simple curious question. Why isn't : import std.stdio; instead: import std.io; (Also, while we're at it. Why doesn't this form have code highlighting? It would much improve readibility. Doesn't that seem almost essential for a programming forum?) I mean, I get it. stdio is the c header from a thousand years ago. But this isn't C. So it's kind of odd to ask for the "Standard standard" io library.
