From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.text.pandoc/11924 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John MacFarlane Newsgroups: gmane.text.pandoc Subject: Re: Add a newline after a LineBreak to writers? Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:52:35 -0800 Message-ID: <20150205035235.GA27289@localhost.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> References: <20150204175703.GA25676@localhost.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> Reply-To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423108374 32297 80.91.229.3 (5 Feb 2015 03:52:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 03:52:54 +0000 (UTC) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Original-X-From: pandoc-discuss+bncBCJZJHG45QDBBE6SZOTAKGQEU3XZM7I-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Thu Feb 05 04:52:53 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gtp-pandoc-discuss@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ie0-f183.google.com ([209.85.223.183]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YJDUq-0000P3-Ag for gtp-pandoc-discuss@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:52:52 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f183.google.com with SMTP id ar1sf1134164iec.0 for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:52:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=from:date:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=PvOT+vvjS9N0FnuwWMlLRkWFy1oiYxX7mqwU6EI26gI=; b=uVJWs+YHMj8gVnfVNGx/kxpdz0azl4XkL6yX8cfWRQ7ys+/kMenU4WxSfwLu7ZhJX+ 79gtlYewlaKxg4TSAavHW3rbTwcnqduMDxPEVupC0LYR8Bs5/YJmreXeBuKpCLJIo9Y1 U/NEneX9EMkSbBsVsz14XWo8QWaV6M3cImVYds1IxMNHtCRcQQ4JCicL8yxgxr0kaVdf cBCN8HYwQ/p+3s2mamPXbTYn59l+unxFMd6rlkqTofoBtiyFyGbeG4erUoKR6TYZfRyT Sn/lW9KggV9HvChXk7oD7V4rngSS79AP0skUCoLqwpTcgj/2LbtkFUkesAcLnInNTzcd dKQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=PvOT+vvjS9N0FnuwWMlLRkWFy1oiYxX7mqwU6EI26gI=; b=IGm9/KRG++L2qb3d+IhCQVVdIa8DjGBM9lN0xeQTyz7CuxkHU9BhF02J5im67nBj0M l1FVNz4j6BDC39iGMurL7TwtL77rE1ZBKVmTl7ukk+vQng5hSnniNnTiHdBYsl+HqebX SLsjo6pNPgem0yothOsk6X24sflkpXTM0aqIFdMJU1iEX/NFyRuxA6FJ5u3moTmXxTZz vv1XYvR8933hBoGn3ZFDOEsj9nVdsUKnhTzyRLesa2ovGnhezU/YxMGIgx08C+elW1PQ neyX2uJN+nlyx6e/I5+qqguXbjonIiCIi62Di/MbTSfvID7AzpGr95EUpOBgiBaNSL/x 6K X-Received: by 10.140.27.197 with SMTP id 63mr25499qgx.6.1423108371476; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:52:51 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Original-Received: by 10.140.108.101 with SMTP id i92ls437955qgf.93.gmail; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:52:51 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.224.67.73 with SMTP id q9mr1665556qai.1.1423108371102; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:52:51 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com (mail-pa0-f46.google.com. [209.85.220.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v6si424116pdo.2.2015.02.04.19.52.51 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jgm-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org designates 209.85.220.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.46; Original-Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id lj1so7159952pab.5 for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:52:51 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmT7AQMVXQUcV6nkTRupupHcqOPMHwAyM0qQiE4OPc59gI15TGOBP9htPlMG9adYK9t4kWR X-Received: by 10.70.126.100 with SMTP id mx4mr2501474pdb.138.1423108370894; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:52:50 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from johnmacfarlane.net (li55-134.members.linode.com. [74.82.3.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dg5sm3452308pbb.67.2015.02.04.19.52.48 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:52:49 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by johnmacfarlane.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C561CA27B; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 22:52:36 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://johnmacfarlane.net/jgm.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Original-Sender: jgm-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jgm-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org designates 209.85.220.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jgm-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org Precedence: list Mailing-list: list pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org; contact pandoc-discuss+owners-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1007024079513 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.text.pandoc:11924 Archived-At: OK, let's just make it insensitive to `--no-wrap`, with a line break either way. +++ Tim Lin [Feb 04 15 17:42 ]: >The no wrap thing sounds sensible, although I really have no idea whether >more people expect the whole block to be unwrapped or just the individual >lines. > >Personally I would expect `--no-wrap` output to be useful for editing >without needing text reflowing functionality. With that assumption, >unwrapping individual lines but breaking at the LineBreaks seems to me to >be the most friendly behavior for editing. > > >On Wednesday, 4 February 2015 09:57:18 UTC-8, John MacFarlane wrote: >> >> I think this is a good idea. (But maybe we should make it sensitive to >> `--no-wrap`, and omit the newline if `--no-wrap`?) >> >> +++ Tim Lin [Feb 03 15 17:46 ]: >> >I'm using the line-block construct extensively fro writing pseudocode. It >> >usually works great, but boy does the rendered output look ugly. Here's >> an >> >example of what one of my typical algorithms can end up looking in LaTeX: >> > >> >\texttt{\ 1.}~\textbf{Inputs}:~variables~$A, b$\\\texttt{\ >> >2.}~\textbf{Output}:~$\phi$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\texttt{//this\ is\ a\ >> comment}\texttt{\ >> >3.}~Choose~an~initial~guess~$\phi$~to~the~solution\\\texttt{\ >> >4.}~~\textbf{repeat}~until~convergence\\\texttt{\ >> >5.}~~~~\textbf{for}~$i$~\textbf{from}~1~\textbf{until}~$n$~\textbf{do}\\\texttt{\ >> >> >6.}~~~~~~~~$\sigma \leftarrow 0$\\\texttt{\ >> >7.}~~~~~~~~\textbf{for}~$j$~\textbf{from}~1~\textbf{until}~$n$~\textbf{do}\\\texttt{\ >> >> >8.}~~~~~~~~~~~~\textbf{if}~$j \ne i$~\textbf{then}\\\texttt{\ >> >9.}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$\sigma \leftarrow \sigma + a_{ij} >> >\phi_j$\\\texttt{10.}~~~~~~~~~~~~\textbf{end~if}\\\texttt{11.}~~~~~~~~\textbf{end}~($j$-loop)\\\texttt{12.}~~~~~~~~$\phi_i >> >> >\leftarrow \frac 1 {a_{ii}} (b_i - >> >\sigma)$\\\texttt{13.}~~~~\textbf{end}~($i$-loop)\\\texttt{14.}~~~~check~if~convergence~is~reached\\\texttt{15.}~\textbf{end}~(repeat) >> >> > >> >It's serviceable, but really hard to play with for a human. The HTML >> writer >> >doesn't far much better. I realize that line-block are a special case >> where >> >the usage of LineBreak can easily get out of control. >> > >> >I wonder if it's better to add a newline after each LineBreak inline >> >element. I'm really just targeting line-blocks, but as they don't have >> >their own block-level type the only alternative is to change LineBreak >> >behavior. The above example would then look like this: >> > >> >\texttt{\ 1.}~\textbf{Inputs}:~variables~$A, b$\\ >> >\texttt{\ 2.}~\textbf{Output}:~$\phi$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\texttt{//this\ is\ >> a\ >> >comment} >> >\texttt{\ 3.}~Choose~an~initial~guess~$\phi$~to~the~solution\\ >> >\texttt{\ 4.}~~\textbf{repeat}~until~convergence\\ >> >\texttt{\ >> >5.}~~~~\textbf{for}~$i$~\textbf{from}~1~\textbf{until}~$n$~\textbf{do}\\ >> >\texttt{\ 6.}~~~~~~~~$\sigma \leftarrow 0$\\ >> >\texttt{\ >> >7.}~~~~~~~~\textbf{for}~$j$~\textbf{from}~1~\textbf{until}~$n$~\textbf{do}\\ >> >> >\texttt{\ 8.}~~~~~~~~~~~~\textbf{if}~$j \ne i$~\textbf{then}\\ >> >\texttt{\ 9.}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$\sigma \leftarrow \sigma + a_{ij} \phi_j$\\ >> >\texttt{10.}~~~~~~~~~~~~\textbf{end~if}\\ >> >\texttt{11.}~~~~~~~~\textbf{end}~($j$-loop)\\ >> >\texttt{12.}~~~~~~~~$\phi_i \leftarrow \frac 1 {a_{ii}} (b_i - \sigma)$\\ >> >\texttt{13.}~~~~\textbf{end}~($i$-loop)\\ >> >\texttt{14.}~~~~check~if~convergence~is~reached\\\texttt{15.}~\textbf{end}~(repeat) >> >> > >> >I can't really think of any negative ramification off the top of my head. >> >I'd appreciate any help thinking about whether this would break anything. >> > >> >-- >> >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "pandoc-discuss" group. >> >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to pandoc-discus...-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org . >> >To post to this group, send email to pandoc-...-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org >> . >> >To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/b25e52ed-107c-4f32-a128-b9b68c149ce4%40googlegroups.com. >> >> >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org >To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org >To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/eef791a5-f76f-4e98-a2bc-0e63c79bc7db%40googlegroups.com. >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.