From: Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp>
Date: 2001-03-02T02:33:28+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:11863] Re: ANN: RubyCHannel -> Rwiki w. Online Ruby Interpreter

Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:11854] Re: ANN: RubyCHannel -> Rwiki w. Online Ruby Interpreter"
    on 01/03/01, Clemens Wyss <wys@helbling.ch> writes:
><<SNIP>>
>>
>>In RD, syntax (({...})) is for program code.
>>http://www.jin.gr.jp/~nahi/RWiki/?cmd=view&name=RD+format
>>How do you feel below syntax?
>>
><<SNIP>>
>>
>>You can override apply_to_Code in rd2rwiki-lib.rb to get
>>the program code ('print ">"' in above example) and insert
>><textarea /> instead of '<code>print "&gt;"</code>'.
>
>should we really override this RD-semantic? 
>How about adding a new RD-syntax element, i.e. (([])) or ((~~))? 

As the author of RDtool, I've planed to change RDtool available to
parse extended RD which have User-defined Inline Element like
(([])) or ((~~)) etc.

# and I have a running prototype. but just a prototype.

But it can't parse following your syntax because the syntax changes
not only Inline syntax but also Block level syntax.

><rbi_code: 
>class a 
>  def say()
>    p "hello"
>  end
>end
>>
>

And following method of extension is more suitable, I think.

>>Next candidate.  How do you feel this?
>>
>>  = this is a sample code
>>  Using verbatim block.
>>    rbi_code:
>>    class Foo
>>      def say
>>        "hello"
>>      end
>>    end
>>    Foo.new.say
>>
>>This is exactly what [ruby-talk:11208] does.
>>RWiki does not support this type of extension now...
>>
>
>looks fine, too