John C

Posts

Why JSON rather than a simple JS object ?

What is the most twine/sugarcube way to write a grammar of keys and values ?

Daniel Howe

Perhaps by <<set>>ing a list of key-values...

For example, this works:

<<set $rules = {
	start: "Say my name $name!", 
	name: "Golden | Bill" 
}>>

<<= RiTa.grammar($rules).expand()>>

this's cool, but seems that the set value can't be put in the content like this:
<<rg>>
$rules
<</rg>>
I have made a little change for the macro to be able to take in JSON object, js object and also set value (need to be pass in args)

Interesting -- I wonder what the most user-friendly option is...

The other thing that would be nice is to pass the Twine context to RiTa.grammar so that Twine-declared variables can be used inside the grammar

yeah that will be nice, would look into it later

Can do this with State.variables (see https://observablehq.com/@dhowe/rita-in-twine#jscode)

In your code above, why put the optional variable first?

hmm, actually the parameters are all optional (can use<<rg>>{grammar}<<rg>>), but you are right, <<rg $rule "symbol">> makes more sense.

I wonder if the <<rg>> tag might still be useful - what do you think?

hmm personally I think yes, I would use it like this in my work
<<rg>>
{
 ...rules
}
<</rg>>

I think for me this is a better way to organise text, and I don't need to use dynamic symbols (just a personal preference)

Purpose-built for displays of data