The thing is that using two {}s is actually useful for curried
functions. For example:
#lang scribble/text
@(define ((foo . text1) . text2)
@list{1. @text1
2. @text2})
@@foo{blah blah blah}{foo bar baz}
and this extension holds for a [] that follows a {}.
But there is a li
Would something like this work for your use?
'@f{3
4 @5 @6}
=
'(f "3" "\n" "4 " 5 " " 6)
(Eli may know a way to get around the extra spaces that get inserted.)
Robby
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Matthew Butterick
wrote:
> Perhaps I'm overlooking some obvious complication. But today
Perhaps I'm overlooking some obvious complication. But today, the pattern
of how Scribble parses @ ‹cmd› [ ‹datum›* ] { ‹text-body› } is roughly
"apply to the list formed by concatenating the datum arguments and
the text-body arguments". So it seems to me that this pattern could be
logically exten
But a block of text does not always turn into a single argument, so I'm not
sure how to do what you ask.
Robby
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Matthew Butterick wrote:
> Semantically, "an operation [in Scribble] doesn’t care whether it’s used
> with [...] or {...}." Therefore, it would be usefu
4 matches
Mail list logo
