Allow options for LaTeX minted blocks #313
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
adamchainz
changed the title
adamchainz
reviewed
Jan 26, 2024
src/blacken_docs/__init__.py
Outdated
Comment on lines
69
to
75
| r"(?P<before>^(?P<indent> *)\\begin{minted}(\[.*\])?{python}\n)" | ||
| r"(?P<code>.*?)" | ||
| r"(?P<after>^(?P=indent)\\end{minted}\s*$)", | ||
| re.DOTALL | re.MULTILINE, | ||
| ) | ||
| LATEX_PYCON_RE = re.compile( | ||
| r"(?P<before>^(?P<indent> *)\\begin{minted}{pycon}\n)" | ||
| r"(?P<before>^(?P<indent> *)\\begin{minted}(\[.*\])?{pycon}\n)" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
switching to a non-greedy matches (.*?) for caution’s sake
adamchainz
force-pushed
the
minted_opts
branch
from
621e499
to
b0fdafd
Compare
|
Thanks for reviewing and merging. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I've not used them much, but LaTeX minted blocks can have optional arguments. My original regex did not consider this. Test and proposed fix attached.