> Could Aftertext be made inline with a small number of symbols and result in a net reduction of symbols and greater explicitness and intuitiveness? For example

> Could Aftertext be made inline with a small number of symbols and result in a net reduction of symbols and greater explicitness and intuitiveness? For example, could an unusual pairing of characters like (! or (: begin an inline Aftertext instruction? Example: (!link to ...). I think at that point, you start moving a bit toward Pollen, a Lisp-like fully programmable markup system that's sort of a spiritual relative of troff or TeX aimed specifically at generating HTML. You could absolutely recreate an inline version of aftertext with it. https://docs.racket-lang.org/pollen/ https://docs.racket-lang.org/pollen/ The aftertext example of aftertext You write some text. After your text, you add your markup instructions with selectors to select the text to markup, one command per line. italics After your text italics selectors Would, in an "aftertext-like Pollen", look like You write some text. ◊italics{After your text}, you add your markup instructions with ◊italics{selectors} to select the text to markup, one command per line. While I find Pollen rather fiddly in practice, it's very powerful.