SexpCode+ revision

Each character should refer to a single-character atom rather than having these dot things to differentiate between each single-character atom.

NO EXCEPTIONS
[b][i][o][u]NO EXCEPTIONS[/u][/o][/i][/b]
{b.i.o.u NO EXCEPTIONS}
becomes
{biou NO EXCEPTIONS}

But, in the case of a multi-char atom like tt, spoiler, sub, sup, quote, or img, we should make use of the dot things.

A dot should be used to denote the start of a multi-character atom and optionally the end of the atom, e.g.

_{fioc user}
[sub]fioc user[/sub]
{sub fioc user}
becomes
{.sub fioc user}

and

^/b/
[i][sup][b]/b/[/b][/sup][/i]
{i.sup.b /b/}
becomes
{i.sup.b /b/}

>>40
Reading is hard.

>>40
you post the code somewhere else and then link to it. a bbs is not pastebin or github.

>>40
As long as you don't start a block FV-style with some SexpCode function masquerading as a type, you'll be fine.

This thread is a disease.

>>43
Unless you're using a particularly strict implementation of SexpCode, of course. The ``correct'' way of posting C code is to use one of the verbatim syntaxes, possibly in composition with a code function.

{verbatim.code C int main(void) {[br]    printf("Hallo wereld.\n");[br]    return 0;[br]}}
http://cairnarvon.rotahall.org/misc/sexpcode.html#ch3

Shouldn't a post be in verbatim mode by default? There's always less formatting than plain text, so why not say ``I wish for this portion of text to be parsed for formatting please'' instead of ``I wish for this portion of text not to be parsed for formatting''?

So how would you include tags which specify that in text which is supposed to not be parsed at all, genius?

>>46
The curly braces specify what parts of your post you want to be parsed for formatting. The verbatim modes specify when you don't want the thing that would normally specify that you want something to be parsed for formatting to specify that you want something to be parsed for formatting.

>>47
Ask it nicely, duh.

>>45
when does verbatim parse [br]?

>>50
Just another demonstration of the failures of bbcode.

Witches do not exist.

{define bi #}{define o i}{define bio m}{define u rem}{define biou aa}{.biou what happens now, asshole?}

I know what you're going to say should happen, but you can spare it, because whereas the code was explicit before, you've decided to add a mind-reading element for no reason. You are a stupid, arrogant faggot and IHBT.

>>52
^{I dunno what this pertains to.}

>>52,54
You are witches, Battora.

Gets back to /jp/

>>55
_{# /jp/ cannot say in red # ☹}

>>53
I think you mean {.define }, because define is a multi-character atom.

You can only define a single function at a time.

{.define bi #}
.bi is #

{.define o i}
o is i

{.define bio m}
.bio is m

{.define u rem}
u is r.e.m

{.define biou aa}
.biou is a.a

{.biou what happens now, asshole?}
{a.a what happens now, asshole?}

You also probably meant {.define u .rem} and {.define biou .aa} also. Toodles!

>>57
Aha, you're right. What a joy all that extra syntax is.

Assume I instead wrote .define, .aa, .rem, etc. I could end up with:

{#i.rem what happens now, asshole?}
{m.rem what happens now, asshole?}
or [code]{.aa what happens now, asshole?}

All three would be perfectly valid; resultant behavior would depend solely on whether or not a given parser implementation is lazy or greedy in its function evaluation.

SEXPCODEPPLES QUALITY.

Enjoy your AIDS AND FAIL, /prog/