"Ed Hirgelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9/8/06, Alex Bochannek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> It's OK to me if */foo/* means italic and bold (this is how Gnus
> rendered your example), but */foo/bar* shouldn't. Markers, stacked or
> otherwise, should come in symmetrical pairs.
On 9/8/06, Alex Bochannek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's OK to me if */foo/* means italic and bold (this is how Gnusrendered your example), but */foo/bar* shouldn't. Markers, stacked or otherwise, should come in symmetrical pairs.Nice example because there is a symmetric pair there. I have always
Carsten Dominik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I remember correctly, these classes are necessary to make emphasis
> work correctly with stacked emphasis, for example */this is italic and
> bold at the same time/*.
>
> I guess I could take them out if stacking is forbidden, in this case
> you exa
On Sep 8, 2006, at 8:59, Alex Bochannek wrote:
I just upgraded to 4.47 after being on 4.12 since March and noticed
that emphasis font locking has changed a bit. I like the way it's been
rewritten, but org-emph-re still doesn't match a typical pattern I
use. For example:
*/usr/local/bin*
Sin
I just upgraded to 4.47 after being on 4.12 since March and noticed
that emphasis font locking has changed a bit. I like the way it's been
rewritten, but org-emph-re still doesn't match a typical pattern I
use. For example:
*/usr/local/bin*
Since org-emph-re uses "[^" border markers "]", and th
