V4 proposed non-breaking space token

[dbolack-ab]

Description

Implements :> for a series of non-breaking spaces analogous to : based hard breaks per V4 proposed discussion.

This serves to evaluate the utility of this feature.

Needs tests.

Related Issues or Discussions

Relates to discussion #2879

QA Instructions, Screenshots, Recordings

Implements as an inline token. Use : followed by one > for each non-breaking space.

Reviewer Checklist

Please replace the list below with specific features you want reviewers to look at.

*Reviewers, refer to this list when testing features, or suggest new items *

• Verify new features are functional
  • Test any number of > after the :
• Verify old features have not broken
  • Verify it doesn't get parsed in code blocks.
• Test for edge cases / try to break things
  • ??
• Identify opportunities for simplification and refactoring
• Check for code legibility and appropriate comments

[calculuschild]

As long as these syntaxes don't conflict with existing documents, I think this one should be pretty safe. The implementation looks good at first glance as well.

What remains would be to double-check edge cases with other syntaxes that use : and define what the result should be in that case. Then add tests for those so we know we are getting the desired results.

For example, :> probably shouldn't open the emoji auto-suggest (I don't think it does, so good).

Also potential conflicts with multiline and single line term : definition blocks. What should the following do?

Term ::> Definition

Etc.

[dbolack-ab]

As long as these syntaxes don't conflict with existing documents, I think this one should be pretty safe. The implementation looks good at first glance as well.

That's largely why I let this loose without tests. I don't seem to be particularly good at guessing how the userbase will break the code. :)

For example, :> probably shouldn't open the emoji auto-suggest (I don't think it does, so good).

I didn't spot that happening when I tested, but I could have overlooked it.

Also potential conflicts with multiline and single line term : definition blocks. What should the following do?

I think that can be avoided with a slightly smarter regex to ensure that ::> isn't matched.

[calculuschild]

I think that can be avoided with a slightly smarter regex to ensure that ::> isn't matched.

Probably, yes. And we should still add a test so we can lock down what we want the output to be in that case.

[dbolack-ab]

I think that can be avoided with a slightly smarter regex to ensure that ::> isn't matched.

Probably, yes. And we should still add a test so we can lock down what we want the output to be in that case.

In the mean time I will sit on this to see if there are any other concerns.