Just wondering, was this the only discussion prior to https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/pull/1925 landing? Thanks. On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 12:08:40 AM UTC-5, Tim Lin wrote: > > all right, will get something going tonight > > On Wednesday, 4 February 2015 19:52:52 UTC-8, John MacFarlane wrote: >> >> 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-discus...-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org >> >To post to this group, send email to pandoc-...-/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. >> >> -- 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/5919c781-f48e-4453-8c99-e2456c43b877%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.