Is there a reason the curly-brace syntax is preferable? I've tried for the
past 2 hours but using filter-split on "\n" seems to have no effect on my
output. It seems more explicit to me to just use the ◊(ul[…]) form and not
have to do any mangling of xexprs.
I think this is what you were suggesting?
(define (ul . elements)
(case (current-poly-target)
[(txt) elements]
[else (txexpr 'ul empty
(map (lambda (e) (txexpr 'li empty e)) (filter-split elements (λ (e) (equal?
e "\n")))))]))
On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 8:22:40 PM UTC-5, Matthew Butterick wrote:
>
> The curly-brace syntax is almost always preferable. Keep in mind that the
> linebreaks are separated into their own elements (For more on this behavior
> see [1].) So this markup:
>
> ◊ol{The remaining forty-nine stalks ◊(comment "" ",") two piles.
> another item
> another item
> }
>
> Produces this list of five (not three) elements:
>
> '("The remaining forty-nine stalks "
> (comment "" ",")
> " two piles."
> "\n"
> "another item"
> "\n"
> "another item")
>
> Probably what you want is to preprocess `elements` into bigger chunks
> representing list items before passing each to your 'li tag lambda. For
> instance this:
>
> (require sugar/list)
> (filter-split '("The remaining forty-nine stalks "
> (comment "" ",")
> " two piles."
> "\n"
> "another item"
> "\n"
> "another item")
> (λ (e) (equal? e "\n")))
>
>
> Produces these sublists:
>
> '(("The remaining forty-nine stalks " (comment "" ",") " two piles.")
> ("another item")
> ("another item"))
>
> For a more elaborate example of list-item detection, see the
> `detect-list-items` function [2] in the pollen-tfl sample project.
>
> [1]
> https://docs.racket-lang.org/pollen/pollen-command-syntax.html#%28part._the-text-body%29
>
> [2]
> https://docs.racket-lang.org/pollen-tfl/_pollen_rkt_.html#%28def._%28%28lib._pollen-tfl%2Fpollen..rkt%29._detect-list-items%29%29
>
> On Mar 10, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Brendan Stromberger <brendanst...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> Hey there, still plugging away on my book project. I have a function for
> an ordered list:
>
> (define (ol . elements)
> (case (current-poly-target)
> [(txt) elements]
> [else (txexpr 'ol empty
> (map (lambda (e) (txexpr 'li empty (list e))) elements))]))
>
> And I am using it like so:
>
> ◊ol[
> "The remaining forty-nine stalks are laid down and, aiming at the middle
> of the pile with the right thumb◊(comment "" ",") two piles are
> separated."
> "another item"
> "another item"
> ]
>
> I want to use it this way because if I use the ◊ol{} syntax, my
> ◊comment{} tag in the first item gets treated as its own <li>, and
> generally the generated markup is a bit weird – at each newline, a blank
> <li> is generated:
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Pollen" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to pollenpub+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
