That is incredibly helpful. Thanks so much for the tip. I was trying to do
this very thing earlier.
Many thanks, for the help and the patience.
Cheers, B
On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 3:56:53 PM UTC-5, Matthew Butterick wrote:
>
> Here's how I debug Pollen functions. I have the `debug` package installed,
> and then I change my #lang line to
>
> #lang debug racket/base
>
> (or `#lang debug racket` etc)
>
> And then when I put #R in front of any expression, it prints to the Pollen
> console when a page is rendered.
>
> In this case, you could use `#R elements` to see exactly what's getting
> passed to your function. Or you could use `#R e #R (equal? e "\n")` to
> print `e` and the result of the predicate.
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Brendan Stromberger <brendanst...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> Huh, I don't understand at all why, but for some reason, the code I just
> posted above is now working. Maybe I inadvertently fixed some issue in the
> template?
>
> *shrug*
>
> Anyway, thanks for the help, I think I understand working with xexprs a
> littttttttle bit more now.
>
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 3:18:03 PM UTC-5, Brendan Stromberger
> wrote:
>>
>> 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>
>>> 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+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
--
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.
