On 11/04/2024 19:58, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
Max Nikulin writes:
@code{ unlike =code=, we can have leading and trailing spaces }
@code{ @foo{is not interpreted inside}}
I think, it should be controlled by some optional parameter like
@kbd[:verbatim t]{ unlike =code=, ... }
I do not like this idea - this will make the attribute list a part of
the Org markup spec,
I see you point and I agree that it is valid concern. On the other hand
I do not have strong opinion what variant is better.
It may be enough to have @kbd{@code{...}} - it is not like Texinfo has a
concept of truly verbatim text like in Org.
Alternatively, we may allow two classes of inline markup:
@foo{parsed *text* inside}
and
@foo={verbatim *text* inside}/@foo~{verbatim *text* inside}
This way, instead of @code{}, we should use @code~{...} or even
@~{...}/@={...} (mnemonics for ~...~ and =...=)
I consider @foo={}-like variants as unnecessary complications of the
inline special block feature. The idea of composition is better from my
point of view. With this approach it is enough to have non-conflicting
syntax for non-parsed fragments. I am against making @code{} a special
name with suppressed markup parsing. The price of composition in
comparison with @foo={} is more verbose markup.
By the way, Org has src_lang{...} syntax for almost non-parsed fragments
(neglecting requirement of balanced curly brackets that is an issue).
Actually "=" in @foo={} is a kind of special argument distinct from ones
specified inside [] and {}.
@code{def calculate(@param{expr}, @param{env})}
[...]
Also, the reason why Texinfo users do @param in @code is the lack of
automatic syntax highlighting, unlike in Org mode.
Is ox-texinfo able to convert syntax highlighting to native texinfo markup?
So if @markup{} is not allowed in verbatim content then it is another
feature loosely related to custom inline blocks.
