luke
/
sbt
mirror of https://github.com/sbt/sbt.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Updated Definition Format Enhancement.md (markdown)

harrah 2012-10-18 07:25:16 -07:00
parent c80c0b71d2
commit 0b69e71ed2
1 changed files with 2 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

3
Definition-Format-Enhancement.md.md

@ -444,4 +444,5 @@ Enter your alternative proposals and comments in a new section (use `## Your hea
## Discussion of Goals
- No. 7 single- versus multi-lines. The back ticks are horrible and will cause a storm of malice and hatred greater than the current discontent with blank lines. I see no advantage over the blank lines which work fine and do not look ugly.
- +1 - Backticks used in this way are unfamiliar and therefore confusing. Line continuations, by which I presume we mean shell style `\` (backslash) or something similar would at least be familiar though not in the context of Scala code or YAML / properties files---all of which are visually similar to the proposal and likely to provide cues to expectations. How about using indents to indicate line continuations. This would be in keeping with the existing structure which uses indentation to indicate that the lines that follow are all the 'continuation' of a section.
- +1 - Backticks used in this way are unfamiliar and therefore confusing. Line continuations, by which I presume we mean shell style `\` (backslash) or something similar would at least be familiar though not in the context of Scala code or YAML / properties files---all of which are visually similar to the proposal and likely to provide cues to expectations. How about using indents to indicate line continuations. This would be in keeping with the existing structure which uses indentation to indicate that the lines that follow are all the 'continuation' of a section.
- Thanks for the feedback. I think it is best to include examples along with alternative proposals. I think blank lines look odd in a structured format like the proposed syntax (or any new syntax) and an example would show this. It doesn't address how Scala expressions could be embedded either, so there would need to either be a syntax for that or disallow that aspect. I'm not attached to backticks, although I think they are visually lightweight and don't conflict with a Scala construct commonly used in builds. I'm surprised line continuations are familiar because of the shell but backticks are not. Backticks, although deprecated now, indicate command substitution in the shell. I considered indentation, but I thought that backticks were very clear and unambiguous, whereas indentation would end up with complicated rules. I'd be happy to see a proposal and examples indicating otherwise. Other container syntax proposals (that don't look like YAML) are fine as well.