I forked the topic, since this is an (interesting) topic of its own,
not really related to the interpretation of code-spans.
On Aug 13, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
[...] I know most Markdown parsers do not follow conventional
parser wisdom, but IMO this is also the interpretation
Le 2007-08-13 à 21:56, Allan Odgaard a écrit :
On Aug 13, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
[...] I know most Markdown parsers do not follow conventional
parser wisdom, but IMO this is also the interpretation that suits
an incremental tokenizer/parser best compared to your
interpret
On Aug 14, 2007, at 9:41 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
[...]
I agree that the syntax needs to be defined more clearly.
I am glad that we are finally reaching agreement on this. You may not
recall, but a year ago you asked me: “is it so much important that
these border cases be consistent across
* Michel Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-14 16:45]:
> I'm totally not convinced that creating a byte-by-byte parser
> in Perl or PHP is going to be very useful.
Perl has this handy /c switch for regular expressions that means
“continue” and has the effect that a failed match does not reset
th
Le 2007-08-19 à 1:07, Allan Odgaard a écrit :
But I'm not the one in charge of that page. I'd suggest checking
the testsuites announced on this list: most decisions regarding
edge cases have been "documented" there as regression tests. If
some behaviour is part of the test suite, you can be
On Aug 27, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
I'm totally not convinced that creating a byte-by-byte parser in
Perl or PHP is going to be very useful.
The key here is really having clearly defined state transitions.
I'm not sure what you mean by that in relation to what I wrote above.
T
Le 2007-08-28 à 18:51, Allan Odgaard a écrit :
Then you talk about the lack of extensibility of the language
grammar (which I'm not sure what you mean by that, is there a
language grammar for Markdown anyway?).
With a formal grammar, extending the syntax is generally just
adding or editin
