Enhance description lists #462
Conversation
Run on Mon Sep 2 17:20:02 UTC 2024 |
digitalmoksha
force-pushed
the
bw-description-lists
branch
from
127649b
to
3694ebe
Compare
src/parser/mod.rs
Outdated
| // ATTEMPT 1 | ||
| // reopen_ast_nodes(last_child); | ||
| // | ||
| // let details = | ||
| // self.add_child(last_child, NodeValue::DescriptionDetails, self.first_nonspace + 1); | ||
| // *container = details; | ||
| // | ||
| // true | ||
|
|
||
| // ATTEMPT 2 | ||
| // let parent = last_child.parent().unwrap(); | ||
| // let item = parent.last_child().unwrap(); | ||
| // | ||
| // reopen_ast_nodes(item); | ||
| // | ||
| // let details = | ||
| // self.add_child(item, NodeValue::DescriptionDetails, self.first_nonspace + 1); | ||
| // *container = details; | ||
| // | ||
| // true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kivikakk I was wondering if you could take a look at this.
I realized that when supporting multiple definitions, the second DescriptionDetails gets added as an entirely new DescriptionItem, rather than being added as a child to the existing DescriptionItem.
But both my attempts to do this resulted in the assert!(ast.open); in finalize_borrowed tripping.
Sample input
foo
: bar
: one
I thought maybe it's the shenanigans I'm doing at line 1760, the None case, but using the following input (with blanks lines) bypasses that and it still asserts.
foo
: bar
: one
Even with re-opening the ast node, it's not working. I'm missing some magic incantation. 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I couldn't get multiple detail nodes added to a description item. But thinking about it again, I really think it's ok - it just means that there can be multiple DescriptionItem with just a DescriptionDetails, but no term. Actually I think this is fine. The HTML formatter doesn't care.
digitalmoksha
force-pushed
the
bw-description-lists
branch
5 times, most recently
from
da3b3c5
to
f4b0b9e
Compare
|
Hey @kivikakk I think this is done now. Running fuzzing, found a couple things initially, which are now fixed. But I'll let it run another few hours. This has extended the syntax to allow for tight lists and multiple definition items per term, such as wdyt? |
digitalmoksha
force-pushed
the
bw-description-lists
branch
from
f4b0b9e
to
fbd8de1
Compare
|
Hey @digitalmoksha, that sounds good to me — I'll have a proper read over of the PR tonight! Thank you for your patience with this! |
|
Would you like me to make a release? |
|
Oh yeah, that would be awesome 🙇 🙇 🙇 |
|
Done! 🤍 |
Work in progress. Enhancing description lists.
Add support for multiple description definitions
Allow for the definition to follow after the term without a blank line
Allow a definition list to be either "tight" or "loose", same as a normal list. Related to Description lists with tight and loose syntax #327
Waffling on this one. "Tight" and "loose" lists add complexity, and is not well understood by users. Most implementations I've seen do support the distinction. However not supporting it means styling the list would be easier and less complex. 🤷