From 31b55e9f7a27283399e42d00eb9e90603b4add8e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matthew Butterick <mb@mbtype.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:21:56 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] remove file from master

---
 hyphenate/xexpr.rkt | 39 ---------------------------------------
 1 file changed, 39 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 hyphenate/xexpr.rkt

diff --git a/hyphenate/xexpr.rkt b/hyphenate/xexpr.rkt
deleted file mode 100644
index a90e5efc..00000000
--- a/hyphenate/xexpr.rkt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
-#lang racket/base
-(require "main.rkt")
-(require xml)
-
-
-
-#|
-The following grammar describes expressions that create X-expressions:
-
-  xexpr	 	=	 	string
- 	 	|	 	(list symbol (list (list symbol string) ...) xexpr ...)
- 	 	|	 	(cons symbol (list xexpr ...))
- 	 	|	 	symbol
- 	 	|	 	valid-char?
- 	 	|	 	cdata
- 	 	|	 	misc
-
-|#
-
-
-;; recursively hyphenate strings within xexpr
-;; todo: add exclusion #:only [only-proc (λ(x) x)]
-(define (hyphenate-xexpr x ) 
-  (define exclusions '(style script)) ; omit these from ever being hyphenated
-  
-  (cond
-    ; todo: the only-proc semantics are illogical.
-    ; main issue: keep it out of tags like <style> that parse as textual elements, but are not.
-    ; So two choices, opt-out or opt-in.
-    ; Problem with opt-out: is set of outlier tags like <style> well-defined?
-    ; Won't it make hyphenation naturally overinclusive?
-    ; Problem with opt-in: conceals a lot of tags that naturally live inside other tags
-    ; only reaches text at the "root level" of the tag.
-    [(tagged-xexpr? x) (if (and (only-proc x) (not ((car x) . in? . exclusions)))
-                           (map-xexpr-elements hyphenate x)
-                           (map-xexpr-elements (λ(x) (if (tagged-xexpr? x) (hyphenate x) x)) x))] ; only process subxexprs
-    
-    [(string? x) (hyphenate-string x)]
-    [else x]))