On Tue, January 13, 2009 3:45 am, Aurélio Jargas wrote:

> And that's why I love that beautifiers (and links) are not multiline :)
> http://code.google.com/p/txt2tags/wiki/MultilineBeautifiers ;)


you are the unpaid developer so you decide what to do with your own time,
no question about that.

This said, I've read that wiki page, and I think that almost all cases you
worry about are more or less bogus, meaning "so extreme and seldom
happening in practice that you could and should just ignore them".

1) I have NEVER felt a need for cross paragraph beautifiers. I would
suggest that if one is needing them often, it's a sign that he or she
isn't using paragraphs properly, that he never really understood what
paragraphs are and how must be used.

2) Backward compatibility...one one hand, maybe the user base here is
probably small and skilled enough to not make of this a real problem. Even
so, what about a switch like --ignore_multiline_beautifiers?

3) at the same time, I **regularly** miss italic and bold beautifiers
stretching across multiple CONSECUTIVE LINES of the same paragraph (as in
"no white or emtpy lines in between"). I am convinced this is by far the
most common case where lacking multiline beautifiers is a concrete,
frequent problem.

So, I'd vote for "please implement multiline beautifiers ONLY for "**",
"//" inside the same paragraph, where "paragraph" means N (>=2)
consecutive lines without empty or blank lines in between". Simply ignore
all the other corner case mentioned in that wiki page.

Again, this is a suggestion, of course, and I have no idea of how
difficult my "single case" implementation would be. I'm just saying that I
think you should simply ignore all those other cases and say so.


Help *everybody* love Free Standards and Software:

This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
txt2tags-list mailing list

Reply via email to