From 9aae8cde345f3af5f874fe11ad7d35a363017cc4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Stelzer Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2026 13:50:07 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] hopefully fix broken asciidoc escapes --- manual/modules/lang/pages/quickref.adoc | 2 +- manual/modules/lang/pages/sugar.adoc | 8 ++++---- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/manual/modules/lang/pages/quickref.adoc b/manual/modules/lang/pages/quickref.adoc index 60dd80ed..0ec897d3 100644 --- a/manual/modules/lang/pages/quickref.adoc +++ b/manual/modules/lang/pages/quickref.adoc @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ print. xref:sugar.adoc#unicode[Unicode escapes]: :: -`\x{3C4}` is exactly equivalent to character U+03C4. +``\x{3C4}`` is exactly equivalent to character U+03C4. xref:execution.adoc#predicates[Rule definitions]: :: diff --git a/manual/modules/lang/pages/sugar.adoc b/manual/modules/lang/pages/sugar.adoc index 01dc0fcc..00c39745 100644 --- a/manual/modules/lang/pages/sugar.adoc +++ b/manual/modules/lang/pages/sugar.adoc @@ -403,8 +403,8 @@ Slash-expressions may only appear in rule heads, never inside rule bodies. Dialog can support just about any characters in source code, whether that's A, Ÿ, Σ, 五, or ✨. However, these characters are not always easy to type. Sometimes it's more convenient to refer to characters by Unicode codepoint; when this happens, -you can instead refer to those characters as `\x{41}`, `\x{178}`, `\x{3A3}`, -`\x{4e94}`, and `\x{2728}`. The two are exactly equivalent to the compiler, which +you can instead refer to those characters as ``\x{41}``, ``\x{178}``, ``\x{3A3}``, +``\x{4e94}``, and ``\x{2728}``. The two are exactly equivalent to the compiler, which allows for some truly awful source code: [source] @@ -413,8 +413,8 @@ allows for some truly awful source code: ---- But this is far less readable than `(program entry point)` and should be avoided -at any cost. Still, `\x{200D}` is much clearer than a literal zero-width joiner, -and `\x{301}` much clearer than a literal combining acute accent. Sometimes the +at any cost. Still, ``\x{200D}`` is much clearer than a literal zero-width joiner, +and ``\x{301}`` much clearer than a literal combining acute accent. Sometimes the difference between codepoints can be easier to read than the difference between the actual characters. From 589a5ee80eedf41083b6bc703690e93f9f40d0cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Stelzer Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2026 14:00:47 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] I don't understand asciidoc... --- manual/modules/lang/pages/quickref.adoc | 2 +- manual/modules/lang/pages/sugar.adoc | 8 ++++---- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/manual/modules/lang/pages/quickref.adoc b/manual/modules/lang/pages/quickref.adoc index 0ec897d3..aae37548 100644 --- a/manual/modules/lang/pages/quickref.adoc +++ b/manual/modules/lang/pages/quickref.adoc @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ print. xref:sugar.adoc#unicode[Unicode escapes]: :: -``\x{3C4}`` is exactly equivalent to character U+03C4. +`+\x{3C4}+` is exactly equivalent to character U+03C4. xref:execution.adoc#predicates[Rule definitions]: :: diff --git a/manual/modules/lang/pages/sugar.adoc b/manual/modules/lang/pages/sugar.adoc index 00c39745..0f649f09 100644 --- a/manual/modules/lang/pages/sugar.adoc +++ b/manual/modules/lang/pages/sugar.adoc @@ -403,8 +403,8 @@ Slash-expressions may only appear in rule heads, never inside rule bodies. Dialog can support just about any characters in source code, whether that's A, Ÿ, Σ, 五, or ✨. However, these characters are not always easy to type. Sometimes it's more convenient to refer to characters by Unicode codepoint; when this happens, -you can instead refer to those characters as ``\x{41}``, ``\x{178}``, ``\x{3A3}``, -``\x{4e94}``, and ``\x{2728}``. The two are exactly equivalent to the compiler, which +you can instead refer to those characters as `+\x{41}+`, `+\x{178}+`, `+\x{3A3}+`, +`+\x{4e94}+`, and `+\x{2728}+`. The two are exactly equivalent to the compiler, which allows for some truly awful source code: [source] @@ -413,8 +413,8 @@ allows for some truly awful source code: ---- But this is far less readable than `(program entry point)` and should be avoided -at any cost. Still, ``\x{200D}`` is much clearer than a literal zero-width joiner, -and ``\x{301}`` much clearer than a literal combining acute accent. Sometimes the +at any cost. Still, `+\x{200D}+` is much clearer than a literal zero-width joiner, +and `+\x{301}+` much clearer than a literal combining acute accent. Sometimes the difference between codepoints can be easier to read than the difference between the actual characters.