Yesterday, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> "Use {} with item but [] with itemize".
>
> @itemize[
> @item{x}
> @item{y}
> @item{z}
> ]
The point here is that {...} is intended for text, so if you use
@itemize{} you end up with the text between the items too (the
newlines in the above). IIRC, originally this was done with code that
would ignore whitespaces, but then use @itemize[...] turned out to be
doing it much better -- and it makes sense in eliminating the question
of where does the "text" go when you do something like this in html:
<ul>
text
<li>x</li>
<li>x</li>
<li>z</li>
</ul>
> Or, "Thou shalt not put a space between the ]{ in a defproc form, else
> thou shall get an error pointing to a location other than that".
That's something that I think unfortunately trips newbies. To repeat
the motivation: if any whitespace is allowed beween them, then you can
end up with nasty surprises, for example, in
@(define desc "something")
...
this example demonstrates @desc
{
printf("foo\n");
}
the braces would be taken as arguments to `desc'. I also considered
for a while allowing only a single space, but not only did that look
dirty (it's using an expression (= datum mode) separator for a textual
contents), it's also arbitrary (why not multiple spaces? what about
tabs?).
> Later I finally grokked why. I can translate the at-exp to the s-exp
> on the fly.
It's probably good to make this an important goal when learning the
system, even though it's a small corner of the whole thing now...
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
