[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design
From: |
Ingo Schwarze |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design |
Date: |
Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:03:58 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
Hi Eric,
Eric S. Raymond wrote on Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 08:12:45PM -0500:
> The semantics I had in mind allows unhygienic requests and macros
> to still be used inside macro definitions.
[...]
> That way you can define macros after a .hygiene call and they'll
> be visible unless you do another .hygiene call.
OK, so i'm using a macro set -mstrict that uses .hygiene
and doesn't declare the roff .dirty request as hygienic.
Now i make up my mind that using .dirty inside my document
would really be convenient. Here is how i do it:
.de clean
.dirty
..
.clean
> I'm still thinking this through.
My gut feeling is that your idea sounded cunning at first,
but is going to end up as a failure. It looks likely that
you might end up inciting people to devise workarounds,
which will make actual documents even more ugly and miss
the original goal of restricting access to low-level requests.
If you allow additional macro sets to define additional macros
in terms of unhygienic low-level requests, how do you hope
to prevent documents from doing the same?
It looks like you are trying to solve a social problem -
design your documents in a responsible way, think about
which low-level features you are using and what the consequences
are - using technical means, i.e. actually technically preventing
authors from using stuff.
Maybe what is needed here is not technical restrinctions in the
actual language, but just simple, stand-alone validator(s)
telling authors "yes, your document is clean -mstrict" or "no,
please consider not using .dirty on line 321 if you expect
this to work with all (in particular semantic) -mstrict parsers".
Yours,
Ingo
- [Groff] Back to the future, Peter Schaffter, 2014/03/03
- Re: [Groff] Back to the future, Ted Harding, 2014/03/03
- Re: [Groff] Back to the future, James Cloos, 2014/03/03
- Re: [Groff] Back to the future, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/04
- Re: [Groff] <OK> Re: Back to the future, Mike Bianchi, 2014/03/04
- [Groff] Hygienic mode design, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/04
- Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design, Ralph Corderoy, 2014/03/04
- Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/04
- Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design,
Ingo Schwarze <=
- Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/04
- Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design, Ingo Schwarze, 2014/03/04
- Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/04
- Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design, Werner LEMBERG, 2014/03/05
- Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/05
- Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design, Peter Schaffter, 2014/03/05
- Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design, Ingo Schwarze, 2014/03/04
Re: [Groff] Back to the future, Ingo Schwarze, 2014/03/06