Re: [proof of concept] inline language blocks

[Juan Manuel Macías]

Max Nikulin writes:

>> the user should expect something like &foo{...} to produce \foo{...} or
>> <span class=foo>...</span>, etc. The only difference is that there would
>> be an anonymous variant &_{...}.
>
> I do not try to dispute \foo and class="foo" as default behavior. I
> suggest to implement possibility to override default behavior of
> &foo{text} to \bar{text} and <bar>text</bar>. The same is applicable
> for anonymous objects
>
>      &_[:latex_command bar :html_element bar]{text}

Maxim, I insist that I follow the logic of the "large" special blocks.

Anyway, I think your example only makes sense in HTML, or at least I
can't make sense of it in LaTeX. Why would anyone want &foo{text} to be
passed to LaTeX as \bar{text}, instead of just &bar{text}? In HTML it
does seem sensible to me that someone would want to change the tags.
Maybe with a :html-tag, or something like that.

As for :latex-command, if I understand it correctly, I don't quite see
how useful this could be:

&foo[:latex-command bar]{text} == LaTeX ==> \bar{text}

when it is simpler to put:

&bar{text}

The same thing happens with the anonymous variant:

&_[:latex-command foo]{text} == LaTeX ==> \foo{text}

which is identical to putting &foo{text}

The anonymous variant would be equivalent in LaTeX to a
\begingroup...\endgroup, or rather to {...}. One could add all the
commands one wants within the group simply with :prelatex:

&_[:prelatex \foo\bar\vaz\blah{}]{text}

==> {\foo\bar\vaz\blah{}text}

I'm not opposed to your ideas, I just can't find a use case for it. In
LaTeX, I mean. In the case of HTML I find it useful, indeed, to have
more control over the tags: <foo></foo>, <bar></bar>, etc.

In any case, I think that my implementation leaves open the possibility
of extending it with everything you mentioned, or anything else. 


-- 
Juan Manuel Macías -- Composición tipográfica, tratamiento de datos, diseño 
editorial y ortotipografía