Formalize extensions support; add inline HTML support #44
Conversation
| if (document.extensions.contains('fenced-code-blocks')) { | ||
| blockSyntaxes.add(const FencedCodeBlockSyntax()); | ||
| } | ||
| blockSyntaxes.addAll(standardBlockSyntaxes); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The way "extensions" or "plug-ins" work for InlineSyntaxes is that the parser pulls them from the document, which the public API can mutate. Outside code can just add in new objects that implement InlineSyntax.
I'm not sure if that's a great API or not—I lean towards not since it exposes an awful lot about how the parser is implemented—but I think it would be good for block syntax to be consistent with it.
You could either also add a blockSyntaxes field to Document, or remove inlineSyntaxes and use extensions for it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, I'm not crazy about exposing the innards. It's also unfortunate that the order of the syntaxes matters (maybe not so much with the block-level ones), because then the user can't insert their syntax in the middle.
I'll stick with how they work for InlineSyntaxes. Adding a blockSyntaxes field to Document. I can change the API back if we need to later.
|
Thanks for the review, @munificent ! I've switched from strings to just objects, and I think its much cleaner now. Still not perfect, but at least consistent... let me know what you think. |
srawlins
changed the title
|
@srawlins would you want to rebase against master? |
|
I think I did... recently |
|
Or do you mean in the commit history? No I'll squash before merging. But maybe commit history is good for review for now. |
| ]; | ||
|
|
||
| BlockParser(this.lines, this.document) { | ||
| _pos = 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Initialize this at the declaration?
|
Two nits, but 👍 |
|
Oh, and don't forget to update the CHANGELOG, adjust the version in the pubspec if needed, etc. |
srawlins
force-pushed
the
formal-extensions-situation
branch
from
522116d
to
8639667
Compare
srawlins
force-pushed
the
formal-extensions-situation
branch
from
c0ea754
to
9e4c2a6
Compare
|
Thanks for the review. This starts 0.9.0-dev, which will be unstable for a few more commits, methinks. |
Formalize extensions support; add inline HTML support
Fixes #18 and #43
I formalized support for Markdown extensions with an
extensionsoptional parameter onmarkdownToHtml()andnew Document().I then marked
fenced-code-blocksas an extension (as they are), which serves as the block extension example, and added support for inline HTML (part of CommonMark 0.22), which serves as the inline extension example (and fixes #18).The support for inline HTML is not fantastic. There seems to be a big desire for this package to be performant. Until benchmarking is more mature, I used a very very cheap (presumably), very very liberal HTML pattern. This extension is called
inline-html.