| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This would make it possible to split them into two separate crates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Splits up into:
- escaping: resolving of escape sequences
- parser: the parsing code
- tests: all integrated parsing tests
Also moves Ident from the root syntax module into the tree module.
|
|
Co-authored-by: Laurenz Mรคdje <laurmaedje@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: laurmaedje@outlook.de <laurmaedje@outlook.de>
|
|
|
|
|
|
This basically reverts the earlier change from parbreaks to par nodes because:
- It is simpler and less nested
- It works way better with functions that layout their body inline like `font`, which where buggy before, previously
The original reasons for changing to par nodes were:
- the envisioned design of the layouter at that time (based on dynamic nodes etc.), which is not relevant anymore
- possibly existing benefits with regards to incremental compilation, which are unsure and outweighed by the immediate benefits of the parbreak-representation
|
|
|
|
Ships with the amazing new `rgb` function!
|
|
- In addition to syntax trees there are now `Value`s, which syntax trees can be evaluated into (e.g. the tree is `5+5` and the value is `10`)
- Parsing is completely pure, function calls are not parsed into nodes, but into simple call expressions, which are resolved later
- Functions aren't dynamic nodes anymore, but simply functions which receive their arguments as a table and the layouting context
- Functions may return any `Value`
- Layouting is powered by functions which return the new `Commands` value, which informs the layouting engine what to do
- When a function returns a non-`Commands` value, the layouter simply dumps the value into the document in monospace
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
