Oh yes, also I added a shortcut for code blocks. Instead of <pre><code>, you can surround it with three backticks (```). - Lucas http://rufy.com/
Lucas Carlson wrote:>Oh yes, also I added a shortcut for code blocks. Instead of ><pre><code>, you can surround it with three backticks (```). > >This is unnecessary. You can simply indent the code block and get the same effect. That is.. if Markdown compatibility is on. Else, if someone is using pure Textile, my belief is there should be no custom extensions to Textile. _why
If you are writing a book full of code blocks (like I am), this is far far far far far from unnecessary. You have no idea how many times other authors do the following: <pre><code> </pre></code> As well as every other combination you can think of. Indenting isn''t a great solution either since you always have to keep count, it is a big pain in the neck. Honestly, this is an enormous problem for using textile to write books or code blocks, and the ``` is an elegant solution since it feels a lot like escaping code in Ruby (`ls -la`). Please give it another thought, thanks! -Lucas On 11/21/05, why the lucky stiff <why at hobix.com> wrote:> Lucas Carlson wrote: > > >Oh yes, also I added a shortcut for code blocks. Instead of > ><pre><code>, you can surround it with three backticks (```). > > > > > This is unnecessary. You can simply indent the code block and get the > same effect. > > That is.. if Markdown compatibility is on. Else, if someone is using > pure Textile, my belief is there should be no custom extensions to Textile. > > _why > _______________________________________________ > Redcloth-upwards mailing list > Redcloth-upwards at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/redcloth-upwards >-- -Lucas http://rufy.com/
Lucas Carlson wrote:>Honestly, this is an enormous problem for using textile to write books >or code blocks, and the ``` is an elegant solution since it feels a >lot like escaping code in Ruby (`ls -la`). > >It has weaknesses still. How can you apply a class or an ID to it? If there is to be an added syntax, I''d like it to carry all the benefits of the traditional Textile syntax. I like the work you''ve done. I feel like the new syntax deserves scrutiny. _why
> I like the work you''ve done. I feel like the new syntax deserves > scrutiny.I totally agree!> It has weaknesses still. How can you apply a class or an ID to > it? If > there is to be an added syntax, I''d like it to carry all the > benefits of > the traditional Textile syntax.Good idea, it can still work. ```(test) here it is ``` <pre class="test"><code> here it is </code></pre> -Lucas