On 10/8/07, Michel Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 2007-10-07 à 23:41, Waylan Limberg a écrit :
>
> > Well, with Michael's proposed indentation rules, the code could still
> > be indented if it's ever expected to be feed to non-extended parsers.
> > The only difference being that you lose tw
Le 2007-10-07 à 23:41, Waylan Limberg a écrit :
Well, with Michael's proposed indentation rules, the code could still
be indented if it's ever expected to be feed to non-extended parsers.
The only difference being that you lose two consecutive blocks.
Not really. My indentation rules don't int
Le 2007-10-07 à 12:10, John MacFarlane a écrit :
I'm not sure the indentation feature is so useful. After all, you
can use
the old syntax if you want indentation. What do you think?
I'd prefer to keep it simple and leave out the indentation feature.
Ok. Noted.
I'm not against option 2, b
Figures, I respond to the old discussion, then see the new one. Oh
well, Micheal covered my points in more detail here.
On 10/7/07, John MacFarlane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> On (b): Non-extended markdown parsers will make a mess of the
> new code blocks with either syntax, since they wo
Am Sonntag, 7. Oktober 2007 schrieb John MacFarlane:
> One more thought. I think it would be useful to allow something like
> this:
>
> ~~~(haskell)
> inlineNote = try $ do
> failIfStrict
> char '^'
> contents <- inlinesInBalanced "[" "]"
> return $ Note [Para co
> I'm not sure the indentation feature is so useful. After all, you can use
> the old syntax if you want indentation. What do you think?
I'd prefer to keep it simple and leave out the indentation feature.
> I'm not against option 2, but I don't see it as a replacement to option 1
> (for the rea
Le 2007-10-06 à 23:55, John MacFarlane a écrit :
So I'm seriously thinking about adding a second (unindented) code
block
syntax to PHP Markdown Extra that would avoid this issue entirely.
Something like this:
Regular paragraph
~~~
Code block
~~~
I like the idea of doing som
