> On 22 Sep 2015, at 08:47, Christophe Demarey <Christophe.Demarey@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>
> Le 22 sept. 2015 �� 07:49, philippe.back@highoctane.be a ��crit :
>
>>
>> Le 22 sept. 2015 07:40, "Sven Van Caekenberghe" <sven@stfx.eu> a ��crit :
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 21 Sep 2015, at 23:53, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I think that having metadata (style) language and data (source code) mixed together is a bad idea.
>> > > I never like the ]lang[ tag because it is a huge hack. It does not even exist in the Smalltalk syntax!!!
>> > > We save code that the parser cannot parse. What we fun idea.
>> > > So people are bashing for backward compatibility and we remove a bad way to encode
>> > > metadata then suddenly it looks like we were doing something bad.
>> > >
>> > > Stef
>> >
>> > I am with Stef, it is a silly idea to mix the two. Nobody uses this in Pharo. Cleaning up means simplifying too.
>>
>> In the code no. But in the comments, that would be good to have back. In color form. As we can write pillar class comments, can't we render them ? Moose as an editor/viewer for pillar files
>>
>>
>
> Yes, it is where we want to go: use Pillar for styled comments.
> Once we have that, we can remove Text styling from source code / comments.

Yes, inside a comment, which should be totally opaque from a language syntax standpoint, you can do whatever you want: HTML, Markdown, Pillar, Pier, ...