Thanks. Yes, I did see that in the docs. The problem with this technique is that once I wrap the input text in @list| (or @list|^, or ... etc.) to get the benefit of @-escaping, then I lose the ability to do defines within the body of that text. (Throws error "define not allowed in expression context.")
"But you can move the defines outside the @list| form, as seen in https://gist.github.com/dyoo/5423623."; True, but in that case, I can no longer programmatically parse my source files, since they may have defines within them. (This is, as I understand it, the major benefit of using scribble/text as a preprocessor — you get all the Racket constructs. Define is a big one ;) Meanwhile, I can think of about a zillion unicode glyphs that are definitely NOT in any of these source files and never will be. Thus my question about whether one can simply remap at-expressions onto some other glyph. (See, e.g., perl's ability to use any glyph as a regexp delimiter, to avoid incessant and possibly error-prone escaping.) For instance, Lao digit one (Unicode U+0ED1) … it even resembles an at sign! ໑(define foo 'bar) On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Danny Yoo <d...@hashcollision.org> wrote: > Can you use the escaping syntax that Scribble provides? Here's an example: > > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > #lang scribble/base > @list|{ this is an example with @ signs in it. I can still > use @ by using it like this: |@tt{Hello world}, right?}| > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > > It's documented in: > > > http://docs.racket-lang.org/scribble/reader.html#(part._.The_.Scribble_.Syntax_at_a_.Glance) > > starting around the paragraph: "In some cases, a text contains many > literal @s..." >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
