11–20 of 83 posts
Minor downside: You have to ensure that the contents of a {code ..} block have all their open-brackets matched with close-brackets. This can be quite tricky with larger code examples. The bbcode [/code] equivalent is slightly less problematic. Other than that it looks like a good alternative.
I believe Clojure has something similar to what the OP is talking about thanks to Hiccup's macros: https://github.com/weavejester/hiccup
Other languages also have similar solutions - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/671572/cl-who-like-html-t...
divs. How to write something like Test lore ipsum ? Does this have a chicken scheme style named parameters?
Inline HTML, especially useful for macros. {html i} should become i
A unification and . It's not that easy to translate to html, but i felt there should be one mechanism, since they all just embed a another medium. The sematics would make more sense IMO.
The macro expression takes a argument (the macro name). Can my macro aswell do this aswell? Any why doesn't the colour use it?
Looks interesting. I would have prefered the use of () in place of {} though.
If you call it lispy it's gotta use parens.
The curlies immediately suggest some broken json or perl hash.
I can see the lispy spirit in applying the car to the cdr, and I like it!
One first bug report (or feature removal request):
makes it to the output, but is replaced with the U+00A0 character in the input textarea.
{p like so}
What's the concern with a real lisp syntax?
I for one like it!
Looks a lot like TeX, which is a good thing. In fact this might even be better. I'm tired so I might be missing an obvious weakness but to take the analogy a bit further here are some comparisons between this suggestion and a more TeX-like version. The author's suggestion: {b {i This is in italics and bold.}} {Henny+Penny We can use google fonts anywhere if we just import them first with the google-font code} {macro…
E.g. How do I use relative links? Is {subdir Hello world} a relative link, a font-name, or a new and yet unsupported tag?
's, either, as s-expression like formatting isn't that helpful once your actual content pushes the starting tag beyond the screen. SGML is actually not a bad idea if your markup content is pretty low (It's still a bit line-noisy compared against markdown and, well, I've yet to see a forum using bbcode properly.
The best thing to replace that is markdown.
People don't really grok tags very well at all.
BBCode only works because of WYSIWYG editors that do the work for the user. That and the wide acceptance meaning that sites like Flickr produce BBCode embed statements.
Markdown works well for people just typing in plain text but still getting something formatted without trying to tag things.
If you have a WYSIWYG editor then who cares whether this is used... and as the embed stuff isn't compatible why pick this over BBCode?
If you don't have a WYSIWYG editor, and assuming you're in a web page and a textfield, then markdown works superbly well (ignoring the ugly image syntax).
I struggle to see, given the title and mention of BBCode, how the linked article overcomes any of the issues of the existing methods or offers any benefit.
Not to say that there isn't a place for this... but BBCode isn't it.
Looks a lot like TeX, which is a good thing. In fact this might even be better. I'm tired so I might be missing an obvious weakness but to take the analogy a bit further here are some comparisons between this suggestion and a more TeX-like version. The author's suggestion: {b {i This is in italics and bold.}} {Henny+Penny We can use google fonts anywhere if we just import them first with the google-font code} {macro…
Hello, World
\bye
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml-4.00/manual029.ht...