Re: CVS update: /cowiki/includes/cowiki/class/render/, /cowiki/includes/cowiki/class/parse/

Double-hyphens are rarer that single-hyphens. In fact, I've already 
reached quota on this single line, and our processor would certainly 
notice that fact.

Being restricted to double-hyphens, the parser is usually 'reset', 
before a second double-hyphen (there I go again) is reached. At present 
the parser is so 'reset' at a hard newline or instance of emphatic 
punctuation.

I can't see how this is restricting anyone, but I'm open to suggestions. 
I do think the argument would be better directed toward suitable groups 
of delimiting punctuators, either side of which any particular 
characters could be left without fear of a regexp getting overexcited 
and lumping them together internally.

The list of unacceptable characters in the emphatic code is [^\n_=*/]. I 
could lengthen this to bar continuation through other characters, like a 
comma.

Then -this- would be struckthrough.

And -- of course -- that already is.

But we could change to - not anything, punctuated - like that.

This is already the case for double-hyphens --
this isn't struckthrough
-- either side of hard newlines.

Sy wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:01:43 +0000, Archie Campbell
><[email protected]> wrote:
>  
>
>> --S--truckthrough is presumably intended to affect only the initial S?
>>That's what happens.
>> 
>> As such, -strikethrough- appears as if you've surrounded a word with
>>hyphens, not coWiki markup.
>> 
>> The three remaining examples appear verbatim, as they aren't coWiki markup.
>> 
>> P.P.S. Nobody seemed to reject the double-hyphen-for-strikethrough markup.
>>Just say no to confusion and keep that last example free under coWiki.
>>Cheers!
>>    
>>
>
>Ok, I'm confused.  I don't think that the markup should be two
>hyphons.  I also thought that coWiki markup from /within/ a word would
>not be allowed.
>
>Are we allowing *B*old /I/talics =M=onospace and _U_nderline?  If so,
>then I am perfectly happy with --S--trikethrough with double-hyphons. 
>However, Paul brings up an interesting problem.  Double-hyphons are
>used in regular writing-- writing like this.
>
>Thanks for the URL.. I've noted it.  Yes we need to have a nice clear
>"example" page..
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
>
>  
>