Would be nicer if most commands did not require a
single argument. For example, I would like [comment] to
take any number of args so that I can simply type the
comment w/o bothering to open/close quoting.
I believe we should make an exact list for which commands
this is wanted before jumping into an implementation. We
will also have to determine if the output of, for example,
[arg a b c] is equivalent to either "[arg {a b c}]", or
"[arg a] [arg b] [arg c]". This are differences in the
formatted output, and also semantic differences. The first
means: The text is one argument, named "a b c"; and the
other means: The command was called to makr three arguments,
named "a", "b", and "c". And this equivalence can be
different from command to command. This definitely has to be
specified.
Note: The whole implementation, including which equivalence
applies, can be done in "checker.tcl", i.e. the input
validation layer. There is no need at all to change the
formatting engines. A good thing actually. No change in that
API required.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Logged In: YES
user_id=75003
Note that this will not prevent the limitation that everything for
a macro has to be on one line when not using lists (comes
from expand).
Logged In: YES
user_id=75003
Addendum to last comment: Continuation lines are processed
properly when doing macros. So line breaks in macros are
possible.
Logged In: YES
user_id=75003
I believe we should make an exact list for which commands
this is wanted before jumping into an implementation. We
will also have to determine if the output of, for example,
[arg a b c] is equivalent to either "[arg {a b c}]", or
"[arg a] [arg b] [arg c]". This are differences in the
formatted output, and also semantic differences. The first
means: The text is one argument, named "a b c"; and the
other means: The command was called to makr three arguments,
named "a", "b", and "c". And this equivalence can be
different from command to command. This definitely has to be
specified.
Note: The whole implementation, including which equivalence
applies, can be done in "checker.tcl", i.e. the input
validation layer. There is no need at all to change the
formatting engines. A good thing actually. No change in that
API required.