On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Chris Maier <christopher.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Tom Faulhaber <tomfaulha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The bigger problem is figuring out what to tell folks who type (doc >> foo) at the REPL and get a bunch of gobbledegook back. That's the >> thing that's been making me look for a better format than markdown. >> (Autodoc already does markdown translation for supporting >> documentation). > > Is it really that bad reading unformatted markdown, though? I find it > pretty readable, myself, particularly if all the link addresses are > stashed at the bottom as footnotes. LaTeX equations, on the other > hand, could get quite hairy (unless they can be footnoted, too)
I agree. There seems to be a subset of things that people would actually even use: (lists-- maybe numbered and bulleted) * `inline code` * *bold* * _underline_ Areas likely to include gobbledegook: 1. images 2. links (internal. for external links, just use fully qualified URI) 3. equations I'd agree that markdown images and links can get a bit challenging to read if dense, but maybe an autodoc specific markup language that addresses the noise and keeps to (sane) conventions is a worthy approach. -- http://www.apgwoz.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
