Re: A simpler way to write literal examples?

[Steven Haryanto <stevenharyanto@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1647 bytes --]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:

> Steven Haryanto <stevenharyanto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I plan to document some parts of Perl source code (more specifically,
> description in subroutine
> > Sub::Spec specification, http://search.cpan.org/dist/Sub-Spec) using Org
> format instead of the
> > canonical POD, hoping to have better table support, more customizable
> links, and overall markups
> > that are nicer to look at (IMO).
> >
> > However, one of the nice things of POD (and Wiki, Markdown, etc) for
> documenting source code is the
> > relative simplicity of writing literal examples: an indented paragraph.
> In Org we either have to use
> > the colon+space prefix syntax:
> >
> >  : this is an example
> >  : another line
> >  : another line
> >
> > or the example block:
> >
> >  #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
> >  this is an example
> >  another line
> >  another line
> >  #+END_EXAMPLE
> >
> > Is there an alternative syntax? If there isn't, would people consider an
> alternative syntax (e.g.
> > say a setting which toggles parsing an indented paragraph as a literal
> example)?
> >
>
> What is the problem with #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE/#+END_EXAMPLE? IOW, why do you
> need
> an alternative syntax? If your answer is "too much typing", check out
> section 15.2, "Easy templates", in the Org manual.


The problem is visual clutter (yes, I guess Emacs can be told to hide the
markup, but I'm talking about when text is displayed as-is and/or outside
Emacs) and copy-pasteability (especially with the colon syntax). I know Org
format is not optimized for fixed width section, but perhaps there is a way?

--
sh

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2264 bytes --]