lel said: > Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say. Ahaha, same here. Thank you, solderpunk, for hearing us out. Sorry for not being so explicit! > then defining special > line types for headings, etc. doesn't actually add any extra burden on > simple clients. It's basically a question of how many cases you want > to handle in a switch statement... This is definitely a big appeal for me. Fancy clients could also wrap quote blocks by putting a greater-than sign on the beginning of each wrapped line, without requiring simple clients to do the same :-) > even bare minimal clients need to be able to wrap long lines to result > in readability. In order to deal with wide clients, yes. But if we did hard wrapping, we'd have to do the exact same thing (but plus reflowing) on narrow clients anyway. > I don't think it's too high. I just wrote up an awful implementation in > the most naive way possible and it came out ~30 lines Plus, most systems have bash, so worst case, someone either calls `fmt`/`par` from the client source code or pipes their client output into `fmt`/`par`. > This is the happiest I've been to see an email in a while honestly lol Definitely. Unless there is a problem I'm not seeing, this sounds very exciting! Cheers!
---
Previous in thread (100 of 148): 🗣️ lel (lel (a) envs.net)
Next in thread (102 of 148): 🗣️ solderpunk (solderpunk (a) SDF.ORG)