[thristian]

From the description in the README I feared that the entire source-code of the program would appear twice in the resulting document; first under the definition of the "" macro and again wherever each code-fragment was defined. Looking at the contents of the "examples" directory, however, I can see that the "" macro works more like a table-of-contents.

That's reasonable, in a minimalist kind of way, but it's a bit unfortunate that Lit syntax winds up unmodified in the output document; I'd wind up having to put a paragraph at the top of each document explaining what Lit was and why all the "<< >>" tokens throughout the code weren't actually part of the code.

Also, the resulting HTML doesn't actually validate: http://validator.nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubusercontent...

[cdosborn]

The project is still early, and the html generation is rudimentary. Will be working soon to validate.

Not sure what you mean by appearing twice. I debated removing the "<< >>" syntax in the generated html, but I don't think it's bad. It's essentially the syntax for macros, which aid in providing context. It's useful in html, because you can quickly refer to the defn of a macro by following the anchor.

[thristian]

The readme says:

lit only has two valid constructs: A macro definition: << ... >>= and a macro reference: << ... >>

...from my experience with other macro systems, I assumed that a "macro reference" would be replaced with the content of the macro definition, leading the code-block to appear at the top (under the star macro) and also in the macro definition. I'm pleased to see that's not the case.

I'd rather not have the "<< >>" syntax in the resulting HTML, because it's the syntax for Lit macros... if I'm writing a document in human language A to explain concept B in programming language C, that's already a lot of context, and requiring the reader to also be familiar with literate-programming-tool D is a drawback.

Linking to macro definitions is definitely a useful feature, but I'd rather those links were distinguished with a CSS class so that I could define their location and appearance in the stylesheet, rather than giving them specific text and markup.

[cdosborn]

There should be an HTML class. In the resulting docs I still need a way to separate them from the underlying language (that could be anything). Initially I thought `<<>>` looked archaic, but its rather unique and probably the syntax which clashes with the least number of programming langs.

[cdosborn]

validator passes, thanks.