<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Chris Little <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chrislit@crosswire.org" target="_blank">chrislit@crosswire.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 3/30/2013 12:54 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
There was a patch just the other day to add a few small command-line options to diatheke.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
I'd really prefer that this patch not be added, especially not without discussion. I see these types of formatting options/decisions as being appropriate to post-processing regexes, not changes to a front end. Diatheke isn't a text exporter and won't necessarily output in the way that is most convenient to your particular unspecified use. If it doesn't work for you, filter diatheke's output or write your own tool.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div style>The person proposing this change is writing LaTeX functions that a user can use to embed scripture quotations directly into the generated files. He is currently using post-processing regular expressions but these options would eliminate the possibility of problems with the regular expressions.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Since Diatheke already has quite a few options for changing its formats and filters, stripping the extra markers seems reasonable for applications like this one where having a C or C++ file do the exporting might not be feasible. I don't know the limits of LaTeX and whether a custom exporter program is feasible, but is there any particular reason to not want changes to Diatheke?</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>--Greg</div></div></div></div>