[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tick Reduction
From: |
Stefan Kangas |
Subject: |
Re: Tick Reduction |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Nov 2021 07:52:36 +0100 |
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
> The variable/function symbols are links and stand out on their own, and
> the keys also have their own distinct faces. Without them, this would
> look like:
This is better.
> And, of course, we could also consider using proportional fonts for the
> non-code prose bits:
This would be even better still.
However, if we want to start using proportional fonts, I think we will
run into issues with:
- Code fragments
- Tables
- Lists
My vote would be for expanding the docstring syntax to also handle these
things, and I think it'd be natural to base it on Org-mode. We might
also want some other way to mark things as monospace that is not `foo'
(in which case it will be linked if there is such a Lisp symbol, which
is not correct e.g. when referring to the executables "man" or "whois").
So, for example:
1. A table would look like:
| foo | bar |
| baz | bzz |
2. Monospace would look like:
=this=
3. A code fragment would look like:
#+begin_src
(defun foo () ...)
#+end_src
4. Lists would look like:
- Foo
- Bar
- Baz
Lists could be rendered with "•" on capable displays.
We could make adjustments or even base it on something else like
Markdown. I think Org-mode is closer to home, but that's me.
While we are at it, we could also introduce /italic/, and maybe even
*bold* (but we would need clear guidelines to avoid people going
overboard, i.e. I would not use *bold* for anything but "WARNING:" or
similar).
- Re: Tick Reduction, (continued)
Re: Tick Reduction, Eric S Fraga, 2021/11/19
Re: Tick Reduction,
Stefan Kangas <=
Re: Tick Reduction, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/11/19
Re: Tick Reduction, Stefan Monnier, 2021/11/19