[Pmwiki-users] Re: Vote on [:directive:] vs (:directive:) vs other suggestion?

chr@home.se chr
Sat Oct 2 06:23:35 CDT 2004


On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 chr at home.se wrote:

> What do we prefer?
> 	[:directive:]
> 	(:directive:)
> 	something else?

Here's another alternative:

	((directive))

In order to see what directives would look like using these different 
styles, have a look at this page:
	http://www.pmwiki.org/pmwiki2/pmwiki.php/PmWiki/MarkupDirectiveAlternatives

Btw, my experience from writing that page is that ((directive)) felt very
natural and quick to write, while (:directive:) was a bit easier compared
to [:directive:].

I would also like to recommend people to actually try and write some 
directives using the different alternatives above. It's surprising how 
much different they are when it comes to typing them.


After just looking at 
	http://www.pmwiki.org/pmwiki2/pmwiki.php/Development/DirectiveMarkup

I was surprised by how many people seemed to dislike ((directive)), so I 
wonder why?

!!!Possible drawbacks with ((directive))

I used to dislike ((directive)) because it could cause problems when
writing formulas. For instance, in the formula

	x * ((a+b) - (a+b)) = 0

we have a situation with ((...)). However, these days I have "seen the
light", and I think formulas should be entered using a dedicated markup,
e.g MimeTeX.  This means that there's even less likelyhood of ((..))
occuring in normal text.

Are there other drawbacks with ((directive))?

Does it look confusing?

	((title A page in {$Group}))
	[:title A page in {$Group}:]
	(:title A page in {$Group}:)

Or do we end up with too many parenthesis, when we have several directives 
close to each other?

	[:directive:][:directive:][:directive:]
	(:directive:)(:directive:)(:directive:)
	((directive))((directive))((directive))

/Christian

-- 
Christian Ridderstr?m, +46-8-768 39 44               http://www.md.kth.se/~chr






More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list