[WIP] Formal Syntax Specification #29
Conversation
mrossinek
force-pushed
the
formal-spec
branch
from
df83dbf
to
7d84df9
Compare
mrossinek
force-pushed
the
formal-spec
branch
from
0b9f10f
to
e49f2e6
Compare
| - | | TODO: currently states in the docs that it must occur in pairs but this is not enforced by | ||
| the TS parser. I.e. the following is valid: ex:_ample_ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wdyt about this? Do we want to enforce the link modifier to occur in pairs? I lean on the side of not enforcing that because it would mean typing unnecessary chars and as things stand right now everything in this regard works just fine 👍
docs/NFF-0.1-spec.norg
Outdated
| A {> character} is considered to be *punctuation* if it is any of the following: | ||
| - a standard ASCII punctuation character: |`!"#$%&'()*+,-./:;<=>?@[\]^_`{|}~`| | ||
| - any punctuation character specific to the current locale | ||
| +TODO(Vhyrro): check if this is what we really want. Currently taken from std::iswpunct docs+ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Marking this as an open question
docs/NFF-0.1-spec.norg
Outdated
| - `$`: {# Definitions} (range-able) | ||
| - `^`: {# Footnotes} (range-able) | ||
| - `=`: {# Insertions} (range-able) | ||
| - | | `?`: {# Multiple Choice Questions} +TODO: decide whether or not to make these range-able+ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure on this one. The ? detached modifier will be a bit special already because it will have restricted contents.
Since we now have the \ ... --- syntax for allowing e.g. code blocks within detached modifier content this could be used to insert more information into the question title. Thus, I don't think range-ability makes sense here but I wanted to discuss this before fixing this.
|
Superseded by #35 |
Rewrites the rather informal NFF spec (https://github.com/nvim-neorg/neorg/blob/main/docs/NFF-0.1-spec.md) to become a lot more formal to provide a ground-truth for parser implementations.