3 ms·

Oh, interesting. When you put it that way---"Example item" and "Continuation ..." being the same semantic unit---I see the problem. And why nesting is easier to

by rmavis 4y ago

Oh, interesting. When you put it that way---"Example item" and "Continuation ..." being the same semantic unit---I see the problem. And why nesting is easier to implement when the semantics are based on lines. I think it's also interesting the way you say "The “Another Sub-Sub Item” should not be allowed". Seems to me the format and tooling should do what the user wants and expects, or at least try to. Why not allow it if the user wants it that way?

jotaen 4y ago
I realised that I made a small mistake in my code sample above, but I can’t edit the post anymore. It should have been: [x] Example item [ ] Subitem [ ] Another Sub-Sub Item Continuation of the first item’s description (Last line is indented, because continuations of descriptions have to be indented.) The “Another Sub-Sub Item” wouldn’t make sense in my mind, because the idea is that the text maps to well-defined data structures, in this case a tree structure. So an item can have child items, which each can have child items, and so on. However, “Subitem” doesn’t have direct child items. I find this restriction important, because it would allow to parse the text into relatively simple programmatic models.
- rmavis 4y ago
  > The “Another Sub-Sub Item” wouldn’t make sense in my mind, because the idea is that the text maps to well-defined data structures, in this case a tree structure. So an item can have child items, which each can have child items, and so on. I get it :) and that's how I implemented mine too: https://git.sr.ht/~rfm/tdtd-parser/tree/master/item/tdtd.janet https://git.sr.ht/~rfm/tdtd-parser/tree/master/item/tdtd.jan... > However, “Subitem” doesn’t have direct child items. I'm not sure if the difference in our approaches is philosophical or practical. Why shouldn't "Another Sub-Sub Item" be considered a direct child? What if the user added the extra spaces unintentionally? What if, just for fun, they wanted to indent their list like: [x] Example item [ ] Subitem [ ] A Sub-Sub Item [ ] A Sub-Sub Item [ ] A Sub-Sub Item Continuation of the first item’s description If that was my list, and my list's parser couldn't handle that, I wouldn't be very happy. But what would/could/should I expect the behavior to be? I'd hope, given the rule that a child has more leading whitespace than its parent, that all three Sub-Sub Items would be treated as peers.

by rmavis 4y ago

jotaen 4y ago

I realised that I made a small mistake in my code sample above, but I can’t edit the post anymore. It should have been: [x] Example item [ ] Subitem [ ] Another Sub-Sub Item Continuation of the first item’s description (Last line is indented, because continuations of descriptions have to be indented.) The “Another Sub-Sub Item” wouldn’t make sense in my mind, because the idea is that the text maps to well-defined data structures, in this case a tree structure. So an item can have child items, which each can have child items, and so on. However, “Subitem” doesn’t have direct child items. I find this restriction important, because it would allow to parse the text into relatively simple programmatic models.

rmavis 4y ago
> The “Another Sub-Sub Item” wouldn’t make sense in my mind, because the idea is that the text maps to well-defined data structures, in this case a tree structure. So an item can have child items, which each can have child items, and so on. I get it :) and that's how I implemented mine too: https://git.sr.ht/~rfm/tdtd-parser/tree/master/item/tdtd.janet https://git.sr.ht/~rfm/tdtd-parser/tree/master/item/tdtd.jan... > However, “Subitem” doesn’t have direct child items. I'm not sure if the difference in our approaches is philosophical or practical. Why shouldn't "Another Sub-Sub Item" be considered a direct child? What if the user added the extra spaces unintentionally? What if, just for fun, they wanted to indent their list like: [x] Example item [ ] Subitem [ ] A Sub-Sub Item [ ] A Sub-Sub Item [ ] A Sub-Sub Item Continuation of the first item’s description If that was my list, and my list's parser couldn't handle that, I wouldn't be very happy. But what would/could/should I expect the behavior to be? I'd hope, given the rule that a child has more leading whitespace than its parent, that all three Sub-Sub Items would be treated as peers.