Re: [quickbook] Phrase templates containing blocks

On 23 June 2013 16:51, Paul A. Bristow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost-docs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel James
>> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 4:08 PM
>> To: Discussion of Boost Documentation
>> Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] [quickbook] Phrase templates containing blocks
>>
>> On 23 June 2013 15:53, Paul A. Bristow <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Boost-docs [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> >> Behalf Of Daniel James
>> >> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 10:24 AM
>> >> To: Discussion of Boost Documentation
>> >> Subject: [Boost-docs] [quickbook] Phrase templates containing blocks
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I've recently done a little on changing the way phrase and block
>> >> templates work for 1.7. My
>> > initial
>> >> version (not in subversion yet) works by just changing the parser to
>> >> allow blocks in phrase
>> > templates, and
>> >> letting the block handling code deal with it. This works okay, but
>> >> can be surprising. For example
>> > this:
>> >>
>> >>     [template thing[] Text before table. [table]. Text after table.]
>> >>
>> >>     Text before template. [thing] Text after template.
>> >>
>> >> Generates:
>> >>
>> >>     Text before template.
>> >>
>> >>     Text before table.
>> >>
>> >>     [table]
>> >>
>> >>     Text after table.
>> >>
>> >>     Text after template.
>> >>
>> >> But I imagine most people would expect:
>> >>
>> >>     Text before template. Text before table.
>> >>
>> >>     [table]
>> >>
>> >>     Text after table. Text after template.
>> >
>> >> Does that look right to you?
>> >
>> > If I've understood this right, I suppose so, but I think people can
>> > cope with either, but it's better to have an 'extra newline' than
>> > being tempted (forced?) into using an explicit forbidden newline.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean as "an explicit forbidden newline".
>
> I mean "an explicit forbidden newline" = a [br]

Ah, okay. Btw. it turns out that in quickbook 1.6 an empty block tag
can be used to force a paragraph break.

[template para
[block]
]

* Paragraph 1
  [para]
  Paragraph 2
* Paragraph 3
  [para]
  Paragraph 4

The resulting markup is pretty weird, but I'm going to try to fix
that. It wan't intentional, but I think it's okay.

> I think I'm not really OK with blocks and phrases, (nor layout as part of syntax as I've complained
> before)  but I'll have to live with all of that ;-)

Yes, I don't entirely agree but I think if I was to design such a
language from scratch, I'd do it a little differently. For a start, I
wouldn't use indentation for code blocks.