Tom Gillespie writes: > I don't mean to be dismissive of the suggestion, but a lot of > time is spent on this list walking back ideas that have not > had sufficient time put into understanding what the > unintended consequences would be, so I wouldn't say > that it is irresponsible, I would say instead that it lacks > sufficient rigor and depth to be seriously considered. If you > can add those to this proposal (e.g. in the form of a patch) > then I suspect it would get a much warmer reception.
I am afraid that I am explaining myself wrong, and it is not my intention that this matter becomes entangled to infinity. I have no intention of proposing any patch on this. I'm not strongly requesting this feature be included, and I am not interested in starting a crusade to defend this (and as for lack of rigor and depth, well, it's your subjective opinion). But it's more simple. Since a thread on these questions came up recently, it occurred to me to suggest this idea as a *possibility*, in case anyone could find it interesting and would like to explore it. Nothing more. In fact, I don't think I was going to use this probable feature much, if it was implemented, because for these scenarios I prefer to use Org macros or other resources that I have implemented for my workflow. But maybe users would prefer this to insert a zero-whith space character (which is a tricky and quite ugly workaround and should not be recommended). Or maybe not. I really don't know. I don't know all Org users in the world, do you know them? Anyway, I want to point out one thing, again. The scenarios and contexts that are being described here are far from "very narrow use case". And I don't think it's very appropriate to hide the lack of something with the excuse that no one is going to need it. Intra-word emphasis is used (for example) a lot in linguistics books and texts, grammars, etc. That you *ignore* this fact does not mean that does not exist. regards, jm
