[stringtemplate-interest] proposed "ignore newlines" template syntax

[Udo Borkowski]

I like Jonathan's proposal and would prefer it over the <<< >>> syntax. 

The "character prefix"/"keyword prefix" approach makes it much easier to add new options in the future, without the need to extend the syntax. 

It is also easier to remember. Assume if we introduce a new syntax for each "feature" ( e.g. <<< >>> for 'ignore newlines', ''' … ''' for ignore all whitespace, """ … """ for ignore indents…) I can already see myself wondering which one meant what when I read old stuff. With the prefix syntax (especially the "full option" variant) things are very obvious.

Udo


On 04.04.2011, at 06:38, Jonathan Buhacoff wrote:

> I think ... ::= <<< ... >>>  is ok.  But I'll throw a couple of other ideas out there:
> 
> Characters at the beginning will be easy to extend later with other options.
> 
> For example, ... ::= w<<...>>   might mean ignore whitespace.  Later you might want ... ::= wgx<<...>>  to turn on ignore whitespace and two other hypothetical options named "g" and "x". 
> 
> Or allow full option names enclosed by some other symbol:   ... ::= [whitespace g xtra]<<. ... >>
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> On Apr 4, 2011, at 2:09 AM, Terence Parr wrote:
> 
>> Hi. There is a proposal to create special syntax that allows arbitrary formatting within a template that does not result in new lines in the output. This is useful when you have a really complicated template with IFs and such that needs to generate output all on the same line. Currently, this can be quite challenging. There's no way to read a huge template on one line. Sam Harwell and I came up with a potential solution: a new <<<...>>> triple angle bracket template that ignores newlines unless you use <\n> inside.
>> 
>> Here's a simple example:
>> 
>> ruleRef(rule,label,elementIndex,args,scope) ::= <<
>> <if(label)><label>=<endif><if(scope)><scope:delegateName()>.<endif><rule.name>(<args; separator=", ">);
>>>> 
>> 
>> it would probably be easier to read like this:
>> 
>> ruleRef(rule,label,elementIndex,args,scope) ::= <<<
>> <if(label)>
>> <label>=
>> <endif>
>> <if(scope)>
>> <scope:delegateName()>.
>> <endif>
>> <rule.name>(<args; separator=", ">);
>>>>> 
>> 
>> come to think of it, perhaps it should also ignore whitespace so that I could indent the conditionals:
>> 
>> ruleRef(rule,label,elementIndex,args,scope) ::= <<<
>> <if(label)>
>> 	<label>=
>> <endif>
>> <if(scope)>
>> 	<scope:delegateName()>.
>> <endif>
>> <rule.name>(<args; separator=", ">);
>>>>> 
>> 
>> We while the syntax to be close, but still recognizable as different than the usual <<...>>. I believe that there has been a proposal for special characters at the start of the template and the addition of keyword but I think a new template and closure syntax is better.
>> 
>> thoughts?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Ter
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> stringtemplate-interest mailing list
>> stringtemplate-interest at antlr.org
>> http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/stringtemplate-interest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> stringtemplate-interest mailing list
> stringtemplate-interest at antlr.org
> http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/stringtemplate-interest