Hard-wrapping: require subsequent lines to be indented/quoted?

[rauschma]

Support for hard-wrapping is useful – e.g., Markdown is often used in code comments where hard-wrapping is the rule not the exception.

However, I’d prefer to have slightly stricter rules and require subsequent lines to be quoted/indented. Affected are: block quotes, list items and headings.

Block quotes:

<!-- Before -->
> This paragraph
continues here.

<!-- After -->
> This paragraph
> continues here.

Lists:

<!-- Before -->
* This paragraph
continues here.

<!-- After -->
* This paragraph
  continues here.

Headings could work either like block quotes or like lists:

<!-- Before -->
## My excessively long section heading is too
long to fit on one line.

<!-- After – option 1 -->
## My excessively long section heading is too
## long to fit on one line.

<!-- After – option 2 -->
## My excessively long section heading is too
   long to fit on one line.

Why make this requirement?

• The syntax becomes more consistent: Going from one paragraph to multiple paragraphs does not require changing the initial paragraph.
• With indenting/quoting, special characters have no effect. Compare:

  1. My favorite number is probably the number
  2.
  2. Next item.
  
  1. My favorite number is probably the number
     2.
  2. Next item.

• I find it more pleasant to read. Most texts are written once and read many times.
• There already are Markdown tools that hard-wrap while taking the stricter rules into consideration.

[jgm]

more pleasant to read

I agree. Of course, you now have the option to write your documents this way -- it's just not a requirement.

The syntax becomes more consistent: Going from one paragraph to multiple paragraphs does not require changing the initial paragraph.

I'm not quite sure what example you have in mind here.

I thought about disallowing laziness when first designing djot, but then I realized we'd still have to figure out how to deal with things like

> foo
bar

When we hit the second line bar, the block quote still hasn't been closed (by a blank line). So what do we do? There are three alternatives:

1. Throw an error. Currently djot doesn't do that; like markdown, it always gives you a parse.
2. Parse it as a lazy continuation -- that is, add the text to the last open container.
3. Parse it as a new paragraph.

I chose 2 partly on the grounds of syntactic consistency. 3 gives you a kind of inconsistency: normally you need a blank line before a new paragraph, but not right after a block quote.

[rauschma]

I'm not quite sure what example you have in mind here.

List item with one paragraph:

* First paragraph
that continues in another line.

List item with two paragraphs – I had to indent the second line of the first paragraph.

* First paragraph
  that continues in another line.

  Second paragraph
  that continues in another line.

Loosely related: Triple colons (:::) don’t normally end a paragraph but they do so in a list item (unless that item is indented):

* First paragraph
continues here.
::: note
:::

I thought about disallowing laziness when first designing djot, but then I realized we'd still have to figure out how to deal with things like [...]

I’d parse it as a new paragraph – which is similar to how parsing behaves for other block constructs – e.g.:

> foo
::: bar
:::

[jgm]

List item with two paragraphs – I had to indent the second line of the first paragraph.

No you don't. This works fine:

* First paragraph
that continues in another line.

  Second paragraph
that continues in another line.

[rauschma]

Ah, OK. My bad!

I’d still prefer the rules to be the same:

• First paragraph: indentation optional
• Subsequent paragraphs: indentation required

Also, code blocks and divs seem to require indentation even if they come first:

* ```
  abc
  ```
* ::: div
  abc
  :::

[jgm]

Also, code blocks and divs seem to require indentation even if they come first:

Yes, because lazy lines are only possible for paragraph content.

[rauschma]

(I’m closing the issue. I think the discussion is finished. Both positions are reasonable.)