💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 000400.gmi captured on 2020-09-24 at 02:35:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
solderpunk solderpunk at SDF.ORG
Mon Jan 20 10:28:56 GMT 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ``` Just a quick response for now: nice post, thanks, there's a lot in herethat I agree with (and I had been starting to think similar things aboutquotes), but can I ask you to elaborate on: On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 09:01:17PM -0500, Michael Lazar wrote: > Lists are tricky because while they would be nice to have, the complicate the > parsing significantly. In order to parse a list while preserving its semantic > structure, you will need to keep track of where it starts and ends. Nested > lists complicate this even further, no matter which syntax for nesting is used. > > Parsing lists semantically would require keeping a separate buffer for each type > of list, and then keeping flags and making sure that these buffers are flushed > after the last element in the list. Because of this, I do not believe that they > pass the power-to-weight ratio smell test. In particular, what do you mean by "parsing lists semantically"? At no point in these discussions have I been envisaging anything to dowith lists which requires clients to recognise or keep track of whetheror not they are "inside" a list or not, or sticking lists in buffers.I have imagined list items standing alone and "lists" being an emergentproperty of a document that clients have no awareness of - in exactlythe same way that "paragraphs" are an emergenty property of lines (ifsome of those lines happen to be blank). Well, that's true for unordered lists, at least. Ordered lists areanother story Cheers,Solderpunk