[ruby-talk:00734] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?)

Hi,
Sorry, I've missed replying for this mail.

[...]
> > 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 "=3Dbegin <something>" fo=
> r
> > multiline comment and proper extension of RD formatters in your porposa=
> l.
> > I suppose it is nice.:-)
> >=20
> 
> Do that mean, you like it? :-)

I like it.
But I want to ask others opinion. I think it is very important issue.

> >>=20
> >> What `rd2xxx' doesn't know, should be ignored. So we are free for
> >> extension not coming from the `rdtool' direction.
> >>=20
> >> Opinions?
> >=20
> > Sorry, my explanation wasn't enough.
> > In Goto's proposal, we should write "<something>" not only after "=3Dbe=
> gin"
> > but also after "=3Dend" to make sure and to show that text between=20
> > "=3Dbegin <something>" and "=3Dend <something>" is NOT RD.
> > This is proposal not for semantics but for grammar.
> 
> I don't think, we should have to use that `=3Dend <something>' construct.
> `=3Dbegin <something>' should be enough, IMHO. If `=3Dbegin <something>'
> would be enough, anybody could write `=3Dend <something>' if he like it.
> Because the whole `=3Dend' line should ignored in any case!
> 
> I would find it very... hmm... strange, if the following would be
> translated by rdtool...
> 
> =3Dbegin ignoreit
> This section should be ignored because the =3Dbegin and =3Dend line will
> have the same text behind it?
> =3Dend 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:
> 
> =3Dbegin
> This is a section that should be considered by ((rdtool)).
> =3Dend
> 
> =3Dbegin blarb
> whereas that would one, that should be ignored; doesn't matter how the
> last line ends.
> =3Dend
> 
> =3Dbegin =A7$)(/$)/
> This section should also be ignored!
> =3Dend lkrelrjlwelrtkltn
> 
> =3Dbegin .
> Like that last section too (Have you seen the dot after the =3Dbegin? ;-)
> =3Dend .
> 
> Any understandings removed? ;-)))

OK. Now I come to suppose that we don't need "<something>" after "=end".
And I also think:
Document structure is not so complicated because "=begin" and "=end" 
is not nested. Threrefore we will be able to grasp structure of document
without "<something>" after "=end".

---
Tosh