William Allen Simpson wrote:
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Yes, this might be the equivalent of
"{{<substonly>subst:</substonly>".
...
Should <substonly> and <nosubst> become standard, we could use them.
NB:I'd prefer <substituteonly> and <nosubstitute>, spelled out like
include.
And looking back at that RFE, which had a fairly simple patch, Brion
decided "strongly inclined to WONTFIX this."
So, what do we have to do to change his mind?
And, who would re-code the patch for the significantly revised parser?