Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] [Quickbook] Templates and Namespaces
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-02 00:12:56
Matias Capeletto wrote:
> On 8/1/07, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> on Wed Aug 01 2007, "Matias Capeletto" <matias.capeletto-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [namespace math]
>>>
>>> [template formula ....]
>>>
>>> [endnamespace]
>> I hate this kind of XML-ish syntax formulation. We have brackets that
>> can be matched; let's use them.
>
> I agree with you. Why it was decide to use [endsect]?
> I was only proposing something that looks similar to the actual
> syntax, but I dislike the name endnamespace a lot.
This was Eric's design decision. I'm CC'ing him. I too don't quite
like XML-ish syntax formulation, but for long stretches of text,
it certainly helps. If we strictly abide with the end-bracket,
we'll end up with something like:
[section stuff
lotsa text here....
[section sub-stuff
and lotsa more text here....
] [/ sub-stuff]
] [/ stuff]
which kinda reflects what we do in C++. For verrryy long stretches of
text, we'd hope the author writes the trailing comment. Otherwise,
we'll have to scroll back and forth figuring out the nesting.
Right now, we have:
[section stuff]
lotsa text here....
[section sub-stuff]
and lotsa more text here....
[endsect] [/ sub-stuff]
[endsect] [/ stuff]
which also does not require the comment. Again, if the author skips on
the comment, we have difficulty figuring out the nesting.
Now, my proposed syntax is:
[section stuff]
lotsa text here....
[section sub-stuff]
and lotsa more text here....
[endsect sub-stuff]
[endsect stuff]
which makes it explicit and clear which starts and which ends. This
also allows the parser to catch improper nesting. This also makes
it more xml-ish!
In the end, I'd say my opinion on this is that the xml-ish syntax has
its uses, especially on very large marked-up blobs.
Regards,
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:40 UTC