> On 14 Apr 2015, at 22:03, Dmitri Zagidulin <dmi...@zagidulin.net> wrote: > > Whoa. > I genuinely don't understand the fierce emotions here. Why do Pillar and > Markdown have to be opposed? Why is wanting support for better parsing of MD > (a commonly used format around the web, and useful in many projects) somehow > an insult to the work done on Pillar? > > (Incidentally, I don't quite understand why Pillar was created in the first > place. Why have a slightly different and incompatible markdown format from > what the rest of the world is using? But that's not the point. We have both, > and it's easy to support both. What's the problem?)
Communication is always an issue, especially for newcomers. Pillar was chosen because it is our format, something we control and define, something we can extend anyway we want, not somebody else's format that we can only follow. Incidentally, Pillar precedes MarkDown by years. Furthermore, there is NO MarkDown standard, nor will there ever be. There are slight but annoying differences between the main implementors. It is super hard to write a parser for MD. Anyway, IMHO, the key thing is the underlying document model. > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:08 PM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > I'm really pissed off. Because nearly nobody tried to write anything with > pillar and you just talk > about what you do not know. But thanks this is great to see that we are > spending our energy for people > who will never even try to use what we are doing. > Superb! > > No need to reply I will not read this thread anymore. And I should not even > have because it was so obvious. > > And yes I 'm REALLY pissed off. You should also say to cyril that what is is > doing is hopeless because as soon > as we will have a stupid markdown parser suddenly it will be great. what a > shit. > > So go and write your documentation in any format and do not expect me to look > at it. > I'm fed up about people that want doc on the web and when we spend time to > migrate from latex to > pillar to generate html and latex do not even consider what we did. > > Stef > >>>> I would prefer pillar for class / packages comments >>>> >>>> I was quite surprised there are any MD defendants considering the pillar >>>> push. But since diversity is (often) a good think maybe having something >>>> like gt-inspector there would be cool where you can add this in whatever >>>> format you want. (And maybe one day someone will write pillar to >>>> morphic/whatever converter and it would be even cooler.) >>>> >>> It is a difficult topic. I agree with anyone that MarkDown is not a good >>> format for parsing. Pillar is the right thing to do here. But there is one >>> point of MarkDown that is hard to beat. A MarkDown text is always good to >>> read, eben while writing. In something like a class comment it would be >>> easy to use. What we don't want is to write system documentation in a >>> format that you need to convert first before you can see the result. It is >>> either having a wysiwyg editor for those things with pillar below or a >>> simple format that can both. >>> >>> my 2 cents, >> >> >> that’s actually my main point too, yes. >> >> Esteban >> >>> >>> norbert >> > >
