[#600] A `File' is not a `IO'????? — clemens.hintze@...

17 messages 1999/08/10
[#602] Re: A `File' is not a `IO'????? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/08/10

Hi,

[#679] Documentation about RD? — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>

Hi,

78 messages 1999/08/17
[#680] Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/18

=begin

[#683] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documenta tion about RD?) — clemens.hintze@... 1999/08/18

On 18 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#686] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documenta tion about RD?) — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#687] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — clemens.hintze@... 1999/08/18

On 18 Aug, GOTO Kentaro wrote:

[#693] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#695] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/08/18

On 19 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#697] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/19

Hi,

[#703] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/08/19

On 19 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#706] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/19

Hi,

[#681] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#682] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#684] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — TAKAHASHI Masayoshi <maki@...> 1999/08/18

Hi Tosh and all,

[#685] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#689] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#694] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/08/18

Hi,

[#700] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/19

Hi,

[#702] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Documentation about RD?) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/08/19

Hi,

[#704] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/08/19

On 19 Aug, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#719] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/20

Hi,

[#720] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — clemens.hintze@... 1999/08/20

On 20 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#721] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/20

Hi,

[#722] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — clemens.hintze@... 1999/08/20

On 21 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:

[#723] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum entation about RD?) — Toshiro Kuwabara <toshirok@...3.so-net.ne.jp> 1999/08/20

Hi,

[#737] RD with multi charset — Minero Aoki <aamine@...>

Hi, I'm Minero Aoki. This is my first mail in this mailling list.

26 messages 1999/08/22

[ruby-talk:00707] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?)

From: clemens.hintze@...
Date: 1999-08-19 11:15:21 UTC
List: ruby-talk #707
On 19 Aug, Toshiro Kuwabara wrote:
> Hi,
> 

[...]

>> Furthermore I think that references like (2) are other beasts as used
>> in (1) and (2).
>> 
>> Opinions?
> 
> Well... I suppose "((<...>))" has too much feature in gotoken's idea.
> It is good idea that we use different brace for reference to Element of Doc
> and resource of Internet. 
> And do we need reference to bibliography?? I don't think so...

Perhaps we wouldn岐 need it. But I have no special wishes here. :-)

[...]

> Oh....
> I assumed that your proposal include to require ANY formatter of RD to
> have a feature like "-use" and "-notuse" of [ruby-talk:687]. But it is
> my misunderstanding. I understand that we use "=begin <something>" for
> multiline comment and proper extension of RD formatters in your porposal.
> I suppose it is nice.:-)
> 

Do that mean, you like it? :-)

[...]

>> 
>> What `rd2xxx' doesn't know, should be ignored. So we are free for
>> extension not coming from the `rdtool' direction.
>> 
>> Opinions?
> 
> Sorry, my explanation wasn't enough.
> In Goto's proposal, we should write "<something>" not only after "=begin"
> but also after "=end" to make sure and to show that text between 
> "=begin <something>" and "=end <something>" is NOT RD.
> This is proposal not for semantics but for grammar.

I don't think, we should have to use that `=end <something>' construct.
`=begin <something>' should be enough, IMHO. If `=begin <something>'
would be enough, anybody could write `=end <something>' if he like it.
Because the whole `=end' line should ignored in any case!

I would find it very... hmm... strange, if the following would be
translated by rdtool...

=begin ignoreit
This section should be ignored because the =begin and =end line will
have the same text behind it?
=end ignorit

See the mispelling for `ignor(e)it'? So I think, my proposal would be
simpler and easier to handle. :-)

Hmm! To clean-up my proposal, I wish to sum it up, ok?

Please consider the following excerpt:

=begin
This is a section that should be considered by ((rdtool)).
=end

=begin blarb
whereas that would one, that should be ignored; doesn't matter how the
last line ends.
=end

=begin ァ$)(/$)/
This section should also be ignored!
=end lkrelrjlwelrtkltn

=begin .
Like that last section too (Have you seen the dot after the =begin? ;-)
=end .

Any understandings removed? ;-)))

> 
> ---
> Tosh

\cle

In This Thread