Differentiate MarkBind syntax from Nunjucks?

[damithc]

Currently, we use nunjucks symbol {{ }} for some of the MarkBind features, such as variables. The advantage of piggybacking on Nunjucks is that we don't have to write our own parser. But this approach can sometimes result in complications such as Nunjucks code getting interpreted as MarkBind code.

I wonder if the following would work:

• Use a different symbol for MarkBind code e.g., {< >}
• Fork Nunjucks and modify it to use our symbol instead of the default
• Use our version of Nunjucks (Munjucks? :-p) to process MarkBind syntax, after parsing the code through regular Nunjucks first (to process Nunjucks code).

[Chng-Zhi-Xuan]

But this approach can sometimes result in complications such as Nunjucks code getting interpreted as MarkBind code.

Is the main objective to decouple MarkBind syntax with Nunjucks Syntax? Similar to #680 where we changed the icon syntax to decouple it from variables.

I don't know if we should move away from {{ }} syntax as it is quite common with other template frameworks (handlebars.js, mustache.js, jinja2).

[damithc]

Is the main objective to decouple MarkBind syntax with Nunjucks Syntax?

Yes, from the user POV as well as from developer POV.

I don't know if we should move away from {{ }} syntax as it is quite common with other template frameworks (handlebars.js, mustache.js, jinja2).

Hugo has some similar deviations although they still keep both braces.

[nicholaschuayunzhi]

Though i have not tested, there's an answer provided on stack overflow on how to change the delimiters for mustache. The example cited uses [[ ]]

Perhaps we could use mustache for MarkBind's syntax?

[damithc]

Good find @nicholaschuayunzhi 👍
We need to consider how Mustache compares to Nunjucks, as the current implementation is in nunjucks and we need to migrate it to use Mustache.

[Xenonym]

Blast from the past?: #192
Not sure what was the rationale in 2018 though.